Slashdot Mirror
Star Wars Galaxies Only to Allow One Character Per Account
frotty writes "The developers of Star Wars Galaxies recently announced that the game would only allow a single character per purchased account on any server. This has outraged some, and relieved others." Click on the link to see the reasoning behind this move.
It's per PURCHASED account of course. Im sure they would be more than willing to let you buy several accounts to have more than one player.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Breaking News!:
Tomorrow Morning::
Sex - Find It
Holocron very, very elegantly explained just why they're doing this. Read and find out.
u m3 /HTML/088000.html
http://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/starwars/For
After this article, I completely agreed.
in other MMORPG's people have dummy "mule" characters that only exist to hold items and whatnot, while there's nothing wrong with that, it makes things a little less realistic. with only one character, you can focus on actually developing that character, and playing the game, not inventory management. (and other things.... IANAMMORPGP)
Don't worry, Chris' game company won't do that!
Right? I mean, he's not posting stories about outrage in the MMORPG world in order to bolster his own efforts?
I'm not going to link to the site, as they don't need even more free slashdot press, but people should know that Chris started his own "revolutionary" multiplayer game company recently.
They'll have a super duper game out soon.
It will be much better than Star Wars, which is outraging its users, right? I'm glad Chris is still a slashdot editor, so he can bring this to our attention.
Conflict of interest? Don't worry, I'm sure the slashdot community will mod this down sufficiently. (Especially now that I've assumed they will.)
I bet we'll see some great MMORPG polls up soon too...
The basically have storage costs and controlling of mischievous behavior as the two primary reasons for a single character system, with storage costs mentioned first and at length. Give me a break. Here's a quarter, buy another 10MB of disk space (their fees are a lot higher than that ...). Even with replication I don't buy that storage costs can be that much, unless some engineer really screwed up how to store a character efficiently.
The mischief factor I can understand, but why not state that first? It seems like they aren't perhaps being as honest and forthright as they could be.
.. ,know I would want to see what would happen if I choose a different branch in the game.
Many people, myself included, like to try out different aspects of a game, online or not.
I
Imagine if you could on choose to drive 1 car in grand theft auto? or only play 1 sim. those games would have lasted maybe 5 minutes.
I was on the border as to weather I would play this, and unless the policy changes, it is a definate no.
I probably would have stop playing as soon as I heard:
"Willing to trade 5 Yodas heads for 1 Darth Vader light sabor"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
....I believe they are limiting the characters in an evil plot design to get some of these people laid!
What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
It can only store a single ASCII character per purchased account?
I want to kill myself IRL, be reincarnated as someone else entirely, and then be able to ressurect myself.
Yes, I know this is just a game, but the point is that we want it to be fairly realistic. We don't want to have anyone who is someone else in disguise. And besides, the other point is that this hardly matters. It is just a game. It has rules. Play by the rules or if you don't like them, find a different game.
In trying to present reasons why the popular desires for multiple characters per server aren't warrented, the one that is probably most popular was completely glossed over.
"I want to try something new without having to leave my friends."
Later on in the thread someone posted a statistic from a poll on the site, stating that nearly 50% of people were going to choose their server based on their friends. This is how most people tend to play these games, with friends. So now if you want to try a wookie instead of a human, gotta give the big adios to your buddies.
There are some situations where a limitation on characters per server is a good thing. Dark Age of Camelot, for example, limits your choice of the three realms to play in to one realm per server for most servers. They do this to discourage 'spy' characters. But within that choice of a single realm you can make 8 characters. Feel free to try out that new spec, or different class, and still be able to have fun with your friends.
I had no real opinion on this game before. But I'm the type that likes to try my "alt of the week". If I can't try it out with my friends, no way I'm getting the game. Pretty effective way to discourage community if you ask me.
Did I read the linked article? Of course not. I've been following this issue very carefully and don't *need* to read the article. It's last week's news. I simply pointed out that this is a very well-thought out decision, and provided a link that gives the most detailed analysis I've seen on the decision. The majority of the people who are going to just read the headline and go crazy here have a better chance to see my post and follow the link than to click the one in the article. P.S. thanks to the other guy who linked my URL. I appreciate it--I am new here, posting/account-wise, and wanted to hurry and get the info out before it got buried.
There is no rule out there that states "Thou shalt allow all users to have multiple characters on one account". If the fact that some one can only have one character bugs you that much don't pay $x per month to play. Simple. Or, start writing your own games and get your own servers.
And...
IT'S A GAME! If this were something really important then by all means make a fuss, but not for an online RPG!
One of the reasons they cite for limiting accounts to one player each is server storage space. Here's an idea: if a player wants to, allow him to download his character and store it on his own computer -- then he can create a new character and play it until he decides he wants his old one back or discovers that his MMORPG addiction is destroying his social life ( ;) ). If he chooses to go back to his original character, let him upload it and play from where he left off.
There are two main ways a user can cheat in a system like this:
1. He can download, modify, and upload his character file to get extra items or status, and
2. He can download his character, do something risky but with a large possible reward online, and re-upload his character file if he isn't successful and ends up losing something.
Both of those problems could be solved by associating a unique ID and last-downloaded date with every character in a user's account. Character files containing the above data would be made available for download, and only the unique ID and date would remain on the server taking up very little space after download. Since the data would be encrypted using a fast, proven symmetric cypher and the server would be the only entity in posession of the key, the user would be unable to determine the internal format of the character file or modify data to gain in-game status.
Don't confuse this with DRM -- this is actually capable of working. Digital Restriction Mechanisms will always fail because in order for them to make content available to the user, the user's computer must be in possession of enough information at one time or another to obtain a decrypted copy of the "protected" content. This is not a requirement for the character-saving system, as the user never needs to have access to the character data stored in the file. Every character file could contain a copy of the goatse pic and no one would ever know.
This system prevents users from uploading stored characters to erase mistakes by including a last downloaded date and a unique ID in the character file. If the last downloaded date in the character file is older than the last downloaded date stored on the server for that character's unique ID, or if a user tries to upload an earlier copy of their active character, the server would reject the upload.
Of course, that's only a technical solution to the problem. It doesn't stop the rich from buying more than one account and getting around every single restriction imposed by single player accounts, but I have a feeling that the service providers kinda like it that way. Maybe EQ or Blizzard (Diablo II) will implement something like this and save themselves some storage space?
There are any number of legitimate reasons why MMORPG players who prefer the three types other than "Achievemer" would run multiple characters. "Explorers" would want to try many different classes or races. "Socializers" would want a different character to suit different moods or hang out with different crowds. "Imposers" (player-killer types) would need plenty of backups....
Furthermore, Holocron's post made no mention of whether any reasonable pricing scheme other than forcing users to start entire new accounts (doubtless containing much redundant information) was even considered.
The statement that multiple accounts are used primarily for muling belies an overly constrained mindset about how and why people play MMORPGs. I can only conclude that cutting out three fourths of SW:G's potential market with this draconian pricing move will only have a negative impact on profits.
A big reason given for this policy is the storage fees. It's expensive for them to store everyone's character server-side.
Frankly I'm surprised no MMORPG's have attempted client-side storage yet. The security problems are relatively trivial. MAC (keyed hash) the data before it leaves the server and verify it when it comes back. The client transmits the MACed data when he starts a session, the server modifies it locally during play, and the client gets back the updated and reMACed data when he logs off. If the client tries to modify his char data, the server detects the change and refuses to load the char. If the client gets disconnected before receiving their updated char file, then have the server store it so the data isn't lost.
With an onboard secure coprocessor card, the MACs can be computed and verified quickly and cheaply with little risk of key compromise. The player will have to wait a little longer to load up the game, but if the alternative is one char per acount I'd certainly do it.
This should significantly reduce the storage costs, but with a corresponding (but probably not equal) rise in bandwidth costs. It all hinges on the cost per byte of bandwidth versus storage. If there's ever a point when bandwidth is cheaper, this model should be viable.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
It allows up to 8 (!) characters per account. And with some extensions, you can have even more!!!
Ciao
----
FB
to wonder if game companies have considered keeping profiles on players based on everything done and said in the game?
/to go to the other extreme/ and blast a shitstorm of personal information about yourself every day on the internet. And it is easy to do, an example being these games.
If some value could be had from something like that, how long would it take for some enterprising game companies to captalize on it?
Some angry words passed between you and some other person in the game, echoing forever onwards throughout your life? Picture your resume sitting before the hiring officer of some company in the future:
"Hey Bill, pull the personality profile, and credit reports for this stack of applicants."
"Sweet jesus, this guy sure is a live one!"
*sound of balled paper hitting bottom of wastebasket*
And there's a whole lot of stuff that seems perfectly normal when in context but could be quite useful in the hands of someone who wants to destroy you.
Make some nasty comment about some future politician? Big Mistake, because guess who he plays golf with on Sundays? that guy, what's his name, Poindexter's succesor. ANd you better believe they're gonna find plenty of stuff on you to shut your ass up real quick-like.
In a way, tribes who think you've stolen their souls whe their pictures are taken, have grasped a small part of something. If someone has sufficient information about you, they do have your soul. Everything would be predictable to them. Even if you had a chnace to confront them, they would know ahead of time how to counter the arguments, because they've reviewed arguments you've had in the past. If you tried to take them to court...out comes the shitstorm of information. all that stuff you said all those years back. Have tremendous power over you through this knowledge alone, not mentioning all the possibilities for blackmail.
Ahhh contraire! You have nothing to hide, do you?
Sure. If that lets you rest easier at night, you keep on believing that. Otherwise, you might want to ponder the sorts of things about your life that will be bought and sold like a credit report.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. You don't need to be a criminal to be concerned about this. Any information about you, is power that can be used against you. If people are execerting effort to gather information about you, chances are goodwill towards you isn't a major factor in their efforts.
Ok, now I'm sounding paranoid. But think about it. I'm not saying to go hide in hole and treat life as if it were some precious secret, I'm just pointing out that it may not be wise
In this way, the only true speech is anonymous speech.
I don't like the attitude there. Too much talk about EULAs really annoys me.
I suppose the point is, the marketplace will decide. I have decided. I won't spend my money on their product.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
...And I've experienced the frustration of realizing that the class, stats, whatever that I chose, though perfectly acceptable, were entirely incompatable with my style of playing in the game. When I go into an MUD or an MMORPG, I generally build a very standard character and spend a day or two just exploring and figuring out how this, that, or the other just plain conflicts with my playing style. Yes, sometimes I can guess decently well, but in general, I need to fine-tune certain things to meet my needs. Since none of us have any idea how different skills, battling, etc. will be from the other games we've played, we don't KNOW how to tune our characters. I'd LIKE a test character to run around for a few days...it'll save me a lot of frustration and potential hardware accessory damage when I toss my keyboard or gamepad across the room after cursing myself for picking Rodian as my species when it's so damned clear that for my playtype I should have picked Trandoshan (or Wookie or Human or whatever).
I understand the issues they're trying to counter. I understand the REAL issue which is the fact LucasArts knows they can milk the Star Wars franchise/MMORPG combination for quite a lot of Money with a capital M.
They know that's the case, we know that's the case. There are no secrets here. So why the hell are they still lying to us? If they were outwardly honest and said "We're choosing to do this because it will allow us to charge for each individual who uses the service." I honestly don't think that their audience is going to be less receptive to it. Everyone will consider it and decide whether it's worth it to them or not. But there ISN'T AN ALTERNATIVE if you want a Star Wars-themed MMORPG. Period. The mass market that is interested in a STAR WARS game is a captive audience...they'll jump through the hoops to have the service no matter what. The people looking for a good online RPG will either sign on immediately or they'll sit back and see if it's all its cracked up to be. If it IS as good as they make it out to be, than the skeptics (like me) will join because it will provide something they can't get elsewhere and we'll put up with the limitations. I honestly don't see why they have to feed us a line of crap about how this is all to prevent multiplaying and then insult our intelligence with that sarcastic "Ah, Virginia, I wish it wasn't so" comment. We're not stupid...we understand trade-offs. But we also understand that they have more to gain here than we do.
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
Independance? Allowing 2 characters per galaxies wouldn't allow you to live on your own without any interaction with others. Now I agree that 4 or more characters per galaxy could become a problem, but allowing 2, I see no problem with that. And 2 characters is a million times better that SCS.
Griefing, well I'm not quite sure of all the forms of griefing, but I sure it can be summerized at "pissing people off". SCS will not stop this, I will(well not myself, I don't harress others, I respect others and the feelings) just go to another server and piss people of there to get my griefing "fix".
Allowing 2 characters per server would allow for much griefing. If a character is reported, then the GM/Dev/Guide should track done the users account, and warn every character on that account about the griefing, then if it happens again with any other new or exsisting character on that account, ban them...seems simple to me..
If you are worried about spying and whatnot, then just have MCS-Single-Faction-Servers...All toons have to be Rebel, or Imp, or neutral. You cannot have combinations.
I believe SCS was just a simple way of getting this game out earlier because they are running out of time to impliment any of these logical systems.
I'll say it flatly--a character record in SWG is FAR larger than you think. There's a business reality to see here. We share fancy databases over multiple servers. Said fancy databases cost $X up to a certain size. Then they cost ten times that if you go over that limit by one byte because you have to buy the "next size up." As it already stands, our programmers are nervous that we're storing too much data per character. Heck, we got asked, "You can live with 20 items in inventory max, right? 150 items total per character across the entire game?" Do the math on the items stored with a character above, and start getting scared.
Say a player takes 1 megabyte of space. How many pennies does a meg cost these days? Plus backup, plus electricity, blah blah blah. Say 50 cents per player? And you're paying $10 to join? That hs to cover advertising, development, etc.. so ten bucks helps to cover all that. Perhaps having secondary players at 50 cents a shot wouldn't be a bad idea since the only added cost then is storage space.
Maybe I should have RTFA a bit closer, but I couldnt tell...
Can you delete the one character to play a new one on that server?
Maybe an option for these outraged people is to explore their first character as much as possible, then delete it, and explore new avenues.(sp?)
Or I guess selling your game along with the high level character and buying a new game and starting over is always an option to...
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Last time I checked, if my local cable co hears about that they cancel the account. They ban the usage of splitters. Not like the cable guy gives a damn (or won't help you install them for that matter. . .
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Anyone interested in knowing how much it takes to maintain Terabytes of database storage:
Hardware
- Storage
- CPUs
- NIC cards
- Cables
- Electricity ($$$)
Licensing (Commercial)
- OS
- Database
- Admin seats
- User seats
- Storage Admin Software
- Admin seats
Administration
- Salary
- QA at 60k/yr
- Admin at 75k/yr
- Manager at 80k/yr
These are all very ball-park, but you can see that there is a lot more than $1/GB involved here.
Sure you can buy a hard drive for about $1/GB for personal use but you don't count all the man hours involved in maintenance or you don't have enugh activity to need maintenance or any of the other tasks involved with serious database activity.
I hope this starts you thinking about all the effort that goes into keeping a very active DB going.
There's more, much more to say about this but I'm done for now.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
I know that in Warcraft III, Blizzard has a ton of data to store when it comes to team games. What they did was set a 30-day inactivity limit, at which point the record for that team is erased. To me, this seems a bit more fair than "you can only have one team" (character in this case).
I'm curious if this idea is feasible for them, because it would make more people happy I bet... Or maybe set an inactivity limit for additional characters to 30 days, and let the person keep their selected primary character indefinitely. Then if they go away for a bit, they don't lose everything.
But the fact that he's complaining about how much data each customized face takes up makes it sound like they didn't plan this thing out very well. They could have sacrificed a bit of customizability in exchange for smaller data sets.
Anyway, enough ranting... That's just my opinion.
...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...
If LucasArts can achieve that with just an "M", surely one character ought to be enough for anybody?
I bet they're doing obscenely wasteful things like using ints to track individual character features that have under 256 alternatives each.
That would be wasteful. If they... oh, ints. Sorry. Thought you said ents.
Reading the responses of most people I don't understand why most people are hung up on the storage issue. Maybe it will cost them lots of money, maybe it won't, at the same time we're ignoring the gameplay issues that I think are core to SOE's decision. The people who are screaming the loudest about this are the Everquest and other MMPORPG power players. They want SWG to be Everquest in the Star Wars universe. They want muling so they can store huge amount of accumulated loot. They want to be able to twink new characters with the latest and greatest stuff. In order to build a complex or powerful item in SWG requires multiple skills that a single person can't have. This makes sense. Most of us can't build a car from scratch, much less a VCR or telephone. I'm not talking about assembling them from pre-made parts, I'm talking about building every individual component themselves. By requiring users to depend on each other to get the things they want requires interaction between the players and discourages being an a-hole to everyone you meet. If you can have 10 characters per server than you won't need anybody you can build it all yourself, no interdependency, no socialization. I honestly believe that the reason that SOE is using one character per server is to improve gameplay and interaction. Having played several other MMPORPGs this is something that desperately needs improvement. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but I believe it's worth a try. For those who want to twink, mule and grief, keep your EQ accounts.
STOP ROCK VIDEO
I don't know about the US, but here in Canada....
You can buy splitters for your cable and split your phone line to add another extension... But guess what. Doing it is against your contract with the phone/cable company. Doing so can incure fines and have your service cut off for breach of contract. Just because they are available at Radio Shack does not mean you can do it without the chance of repurcussion. And in fact, there are 'legal' uses of splitters and signal boosters that don't include setting up a pirated outlet.
Doing so is theft of service, plain and simple.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
Assuming you're in the US, your local cable company is kind of, well, violating law. The Telecommunications Reform (or Deregulation, or something) Act of, oh, 1993 or so (too lazy to look up the reference) specifically states that the wiring in your house is yours, and what you do with at that point is your business. You can put splitters on those wires to get the signal to as many places as you want.
Now, each splitter drops the signal level, and the cable co is under no obligation to up your signal to accomodate your mess of splitters. Additionally, there's nothing that prohibits a cable company from charging for an extra outlet, and many do that. Some will only charge an installation fee one time, while others will charge a monthly extra outlet fee, which is basically breaking up your extra outlet installation fee into an infinite number of equal monthly installments. Hey, if they installed that outlet for you, they can charge you whatever they like, however they like. But, if you hooked up that outlet yourself, on wires that legally belong to you, they can't charge you any additional money for that.
Of course, the cable company could make sure that they're sending a 0db signal, and charge you to up it if you're splitting it. And, don't forget one of the real reasons why the cable companies love digital cable so much. Since you need a box, it's back to the per television fee. Even if you could buy your own digital cable box, they can still charge an access fee to authorize it on a monthly basis.
Just because I'm too lazy to look up the reference doesn't mean that this is not 100% true. I'm a renowned authority on the subject. If you don't believe me and want to prove me wrong, find a reference and post it here (this is just my way of baiting someone into doing the fact checking for me).
There is nothing to stop you from doing just that with only 1 character. You have 3 options in star wars.
1- Since this character obviously does not meet your style of play, delete it. Since you are ready to try something new you obviously have not become attached to it, and 2 days played time is not much to give us.
2- use the sell back option for the skill, wow a game that you can change your mind and sell skills back so that you can try something new like you mentioned.
3- Create your character on another server. This goes along with number 1, 2 days is not alot of time to put into a character, and you will not have made any lasting friendships by that time, lasting friendship takes more then 2 days to build up.
Not that elegant.... He lists the pros and cons, mostly just glosses over the reasons people want more than one character, and misses an obvious (and tried-and-true) solution to the problem of having characters in multiple factions: allow multiple characters on a server, but in one faction only. Dark Age of Camelot does this.
Another concern would be how viable it actually is to play on different servers. With most MMORPGs, your connection to the server plays a large role in how well you'll fight, especially in PvP. For that reason people choose a server that is closest to them physically, so they can enjoy a good connection. You'll probably find one or two SWG servers with a good connection, but on the further servers you'll always be playing second fiddle to the locals.
In the end I agree with the poster who said "You can have my 10 characters on 10 servers, if you give me just 2 characters on a single server". Raph Koster goes on about experimenting (dabbling as he calls it), muling and twinking, and he does not miss the fact that these are in fact very popular playstyles. That leads me to believe that this is primarily a business decision: these playstyles are in fact so popular that people will happily fork over money for an additional account once they are hooked. I'm not sure that Raph is the one that made this decision, it might have been some drongo from Lucasart marketing. But it's a smart move... look at Ultima Online, where one gets to play 5 characters per server on all the servers. Even so, some players have as many as 5 accounts. Personally I think that anyone playing SWG and liking it, will very soon feel the need for an additional account.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Please read the post by Holocron on the reasons behind SCS when you can.
SCS is critical to many aspects that are only unique to SWG and not other MMOs. This is not a SCS Vs MCS issue. But more of which will be best for SWG.
I am sure alot of old school MMO gamers will be put off by it but here's my take anyway
First of all, the customizability of SWG needs SCS. It's not only when you create your character but also after throught your SWG gamelife! The Image Designer Profession can alter your look, hairstyle, tatoos, cloths etc. There will be 3 layers of clothings. Your house and many other things can be customized and personalized. Your pets can also grow! Not just in its stats and skills but its size! There are many more other features of the game that can be customized. This customizability aspect of SWG is unseen in any other games. And it needs SCS to maintain a feasible server/CS cost.
SCS ensures a player-driven economy will not get destroyed by excessive muling and self-sufficient players. And it secures the roles of the crafter professions in the economy. Trading at this scale will also foster a tighter community.
SCS also means no more two-face cowards that play their main hero then logon their griefer char once in the while to just piss people off. With only one character per server, and such heavy emphasis on interdependency, every single actions you do in game counts. Griefer can still buy separate accounts, but he would have to pay to do that and that atleast covers the additional CS he caused.
There are many more reasons and benefits SCS will bring to SWG. The only benefit MCS I can see so far is satisfying the old MMO gamers "habit". I canforesee SWG's SCS concept will only be the first in the 3rd generation MMOs. As MMO becomes bigger, more detail and more complex, they will need SCS.
It all boils down to one question, do you want to play UO/AC/EQ-in-space, or do you want to play SWG? Those who gets put off by SCS and refuse to play SWG, I am sure a good portion of them will try out SWG when the others rave about it when its launched. Ya, I have that much faith in it. ;)
I will stop here before I carelessly break my NDA :p
P.S. In a nutshell SWG's SCS means, for each account you own, you can have 10 character but only 1 on each server.
SCS - Single Character Servers
MCS - Multiple Character Servers
CS - Customer Support
-Tang
SOE sure has its head in the sand here. Mythic just raised the number in Dark Age of Camelot to 8/server(24 on Gareheris, pendragon, Mordread, and Andred, actually).
So why would you want more than 1 characters on a single server?
-Friends: People make alt characters and still want to be with their friends.
-Crafting: No one class can do all the crafts, and there are people who take pride that have a high skill crafter for most/all the craft trades. High level crafters are an asset to the entire realm.
-Roleplayiing: Yes, there are people who actually roleplay. And some roleplay more than 1 character.
Unless SOE changes their policy, I won't be picking up SW:G myself.
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
This is NOT some Starwars Fan Weblog we're talking about here. This is the Big Time. This is where the the Grownups play. Mysql or postgress haven't got the balls to handle the kinds of data sets and transaction times this kind of application requires. You need Big Iron, and Big Commercial Databases.
1) Pick a popular franchise
2) Make a cheap as in shoddy game around it
3) Short term profit
4) Repeat
"Hey, I don't feel like playing my Fighter today... I feel like using my Thief instead... can you guys all ditch your characters and go to this server?"
Yeah, right...
Why does everyone always talk about this "Mule" crap when this subject is brought up? I've been into RPGs off and on since '81, and I can't remember a long running campaign EVER where I just used a single character. Why? I would periodically feel like PLAYING a different ROLE. That is, after all, the entire purpose of a ROLE PLAYING game....
Not that I care... there's hasn't been a quality product from the Star Wars franchise since ROTJ came out, and you'd be a fool to expect it to change now...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Can't you just cancel your account, then start again - since from what you've said you don't want multiple simultanuous characters, which is (if I read the forum thread right) what they are preventing.
no sig.
I don't see that it would be necessarily hard to catch most cheats. Correlating transactions between players, IP addresses, credit cards, addresses and other personal info should enable it quite easily. A player so flagged could be monitored by an admin and kicked when they were caught doing it.
You're absolutely correct. Using client storage capacity to store encrypted alts is a particularly elegant solution. The reason why it works -- unlike the stream obfuscation of Everquest et al -- is because the client never receives the symmetric key for the encrypted data. It's remote storage; the carrier for a megabyte blob of something or other. There's no "partial disclosure"; AES or 3DES will deploy just fine, and no kiddie's getting around it. Throw a timestamp and an HMAC into the file pre-crypto, just to prevent various forms of corruption attacks.
Pretty trivial, and there goes the DB problems (in exchange for a bandwidth hit).
The job of the game is to be addictive and fun for as long as possible. Supporting group play, both in-house and across geographic boundries, is empirically one of the more important techniques for "keeping people hooked". If deciding to try an all-new character forces me to lose my original investment, I'm not likely to switch. But since my original interest was driven by boredom, I'm also not likely to continue paying $10 a month now that the entertainment value has ceased.
On a similar note, nobody ever paid $10 a month because they really felt good about supporting that EULA.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
... to take business advice from a bunch of goobs who can't spell or cobble together a proper sentence.
Seriously... all those replies from what appear to be either adolescents or illiterates stating categorically how bad an idea this is and how they'll lose money! Yeah, I'm sure there's heaps of business experience and acumen behind each "sence" and "their" [they're] and "are" [our]. One poster even mis-spelled his own god#&^%$ name for fsck's sake!
I'll play. And I'll play safe in the knowledge that the worst of the whiners will be off on their pouting protest of what's probably the most anticipated (and probably, eventually, most profitable) MMORPG ever and not getting in way of my enjoyment.
- I am made of meat.
I'd LIKE a test character to run around for a few days...it'll save me a lot of frustration and potential hardware accessory damage when I toss my keyboard or gamepad across the room after cursing myself for picking Rodian as my species when it's so damned clear that for my playtype I should have picked Trandoshan (or Wookie or Human or whatever).
Well I'm going for the safe bet by playing as C3PO. That guy kicks ass (well he would if his legs moved more than 3 inches at a time)...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
MCS or Multiple Characters per Server is a very abused thing.
1. Mules. Many characters are created just to hold lots of items or carry them places the main character cannot go. Sum up the capabilities of the main and all the mules and you have a super-character at the expense of the game company and the other players game enjoyment.
2. Low level char is acting an ass so people around him get mad at him and wont group with him. He goes and gets his high level character and spawn camps preventing others from enjoying game. Harassment is a very real thing. Now you got an alt war on your hands and it's a support nightmare due to the fact that it's hard to identify alts.
3. Hi level players decide to start alts. They twink (give hi level stuff to their own low level characters) and now the new main chars of new players are at a disadvantage. Nothing like being passed over for a group because your Bronze armor didn't stack up to the Cobalt armor of your level 10 warrior competitor.
4. The one-stop-shop. You got yer Shamans making potions, your enchanters making jewelry and fetching components for the shaman. You got yer gnome tinkering. Why would you need to do business with anyone else?
People will always find a loophole in the rules. The SCS (single character per server) idea will address some of the inequities currently brought about by the abuses of MCS (multichar per server). I'm sure that the more financially endowed players will purchase multiple accounts (like they are doing even now with MCS) so that they may continue to abuse the game - with SCS they will be forced to pay for abuses AND they will be more accountable for same.
Some ideas:
To address some of the problems with SCS such as wanting to dabble with a new char class. They could have a short lived tryout character at the end of which time the user could decide whether they wanted the original char or the new char. Only one would live. HOWEVER, this would also allow the transfer of goods from one to the other i.e. the new char benefitting from the old char's accumulated wealth and items - an abuse.
They could allow users to purchase more slots per server. Would still allow abuse of trade as purchasing additional separate accounts BUT would keep users from transferring directly from one char to another - they'd need a cooperative mule.
To sum up:
The SCS idea is the best one they've come up with yet to address inequities.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
All those MUD, MUSH, MOO, whatever admins who dream of doing it commercially should take special note here.
When you do it for free, you can tell people this is how it is, like it or lump it.
When you do it for a living you have to kiss ass and attempt to convince people that your (bosses) decision is the right one for them (the people indirectly paying your wages and keeping you in a job).
So be careful what you wish for and remember that sometimes hobbies are enjoyable mainly because they are hobbies...
Note: In either case you still have to listen to them bitch and moan.
The problem with DAOC is that it is nothing more than an analysis of EQ and trying to address the little nitpicking issues people had with it.
1. People didn't like waiting for ports in EQ. DAOC provided rentable horses.
2. There were problems with low level chars wearing hi level gear. DAOC wouldn't allow the lowbie to wear gear that was outside it's level range. I feel that if a char were personally successful due to real gains then they should be able to purchase the advanced gear - DAOC would not allow this.
3. There was the problem with gear never wearing out in EQ. DAOC solved this problem by having degradable gear. Not a bad idea really.
4. People complained that they were spending too much time getting their body back in EQ. DAOC used the concept of the headstone. Go to the headstone and pray. You get your exp back. No need to worry about lost gear at all - you already got it back. Where is the risk?
DAOC is not a bad game. It merely examined what people didn't like in EQ and tried to address them. In the end, it seemed that they handed them the game on a silver platter. At first you might be pleased! Indeed! But, you soon begin to realize that the game is not as challenging. There is no real risk and without risk there is no danger of failure. With no danger of failure there is no perceived success. Risk of failure is what makes gambling challenging - the potential rewards are great but skill has not alot to do with it though some. Risk of failure is what makes ANYTHING challenging.
Risk vs. Reward is the idea or vision of Verant. I agree with it. You risk much and through good planning and skill - not to mention a bit of luck you get the reward. If it's just handed to you on a silver platter then all you have to do is just sit there and wait for it to fall in your lap. No challenge... no risk... no fun.
Some of the good new ideas have gotten back into EQ but I hope Verant continues to try to maintain balance of play so it stays challenging.
YMMV
Don't know about physical location of servers. That is beyond the scope of the SCS or MCS issue. However, I do maintain that different servers have different economys and userbased societies - it has a direct bearing on which server different folks will want to play.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I'm actually impressed with (1) their insistence on a good business model, and (2) their serious cluefulness and proactivity about online gaming in general and MMORPGs in particular.
And I'm very nervous about what a time sink (read: addiction) Galaxies could be, at least for me. For that reason, I probably just plain won't buy it.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
I'm sure that announcement relieved some of the stress from the other games out there. The industry standard is more then one account and no matter what the reasons people expect it.
Personally I enjoy have an alt around. Over time even casual players will reach a certain maxim. When that happens for myself, I don't want to switch servers just to try out another character.
He spoke of building strong communities and in my opinion nothing will fragment this worse then players being forced to other servers to try another character.
We know the real reason, casually dressed behind user concerns, they want to keep the total cost per player down.
Not that I have played the game yet, but the quoted storage space was quite high with regards to what I have been accustomed too. If it is such a big deal, have the total storage space as a shared resource between all characters for a given account. (ie, shared vault but individual storage on characters). In the end, all the characters are married to each other via the account ID so this can't be terribly difficult to implement.
My other guess is the worry regarding twinking characters, but no matter what you do this is going to happen. You can limit this to an extent but it would create inflexibilities trying to completely remove it.
Again, no matter what problem they say this character limitation fixes it is going to happen. The only difference now happens to be SWG picks up a few extra bucks along the way.
What is really sad is they KNOW they can get away with it. Damn you Star Wars fans... just try to be picky for five minutes.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
...but seriously though, I very much hope that SCS will increase player-accountability. Heck, I very much hope that SCS will increase actual RP. With only one character to work with, perhaps people would be more willing to really *play* their characters and flesh out the Star Wars universe.
After all, what would ruin the experience of living on Tattoine more than being constantly subjected to conversations like this:
A) Psst! Hey, Bob, it's me. Al.
B) Bob? Dude, you're a CHICK!
A) Yeah, I know. I just finished watching "Bring it on" so I wanted to be a hot acrobat for a day.
B) Dude! You're hot! Let's go back to my hut.
A) Uh... I think I'll go make a Wookie instead. C Ya.
(some time later)
B) Dude, you are one HOT Wookie! Let's go back to my hut.
Yes...but did your other roles exist solely to support your primary role. For example, did you create a Cleric/Healer character in order to have someone whose sole reason for existence was to act as paramedic to your Warrior (and I'm not talking about the initial investment in time -- obviously, you had to spend some time getting the Healer's level up to a respectable point so he could meet all of your Warrior's needs -- not only routine healings but resurrections and such, as needed)?
The issue becomes particularly cloudy if your Cleric/Healer does not actually adventure with you and instead waits for you to visit him whenever you need something....or when you want to store some gold....or for any other reason that places the Cleric/Healer in a pure support/increased carrying capacity role.
Your Cleric/Healer has now destabilized the local economy. If you can get free healing from your Cleric/Healer, why would you ever go to any of the other Healers in town? (And even if you move money from one character to the other in order to simulate "paying" for the healing service, you haven't really paid for anything -- you've moved money from one storage location to another; both of which you own).
As a Gamemaster, I have always allowed my Player's to create and play multiple characters but I have never allowed them to create/play them simultaneously and I have never allowed one Player's character to support another of that same Player's characters. My reasons? Economics -- it is a lot easier to motivate players to take on adventures when they are strapped for cash. If Joe never had to seek assistance outside his own pack of PCs, he'd become fabulously wealthy and overly powerful -- not on the basis of his excellent skills but on the basis of exploiting a loop-hole in the game mechanics.
One positive in most face-to-face RPGs, at least, is that your character typically does not improve in skills when you are not actively playing them (I am aware that some RPG Systems support "off-time" skill advancement but have never seen it widely used after playing RPGs for over 20 years). Now consider MMORPGs where you do not even have to be present for your character to be gaining/improving skills. Now not only have you destabilized the local economy but you have also turned that "extra character" into a factory. Now...maybe "Sword Factory" is an interesting role to you...
With mules existing to solely support primary characters, why would anyone bother playing a character with a support role? Why would I bother to play a weaponsmith or other artisan when I know other players can create their own, tell them to study/learn their craft, leave them and come back to an accomplished character who can now provide a service to them for, essentially, free.
Most MMORPGs I have seen (and most MMORPG players I have talked to) are more about accumulation of wealth and power than they are about ROLE-playing. SWG, it seems, is actually attempting to provide a ROLE-playing experience -- you don't have to be a combatant to make a difference. Choosing to be a merchant, opening a shop and supplying other adventurers can be a fun role (I'm thinking about the barkeep or equipment supplier who can function as the local rumor mill here...) as long as "mule" characters are eliminated...if a Player has no reason to visit your store because he's got a pack of mules meeting his every need then there is no reason for you to create that merchant character.
Just my opinion...
codemonkey
In fact, this kind of thing could be a potential boon to the company because they could sell a secondary service where they store a "deleted" character for you for some nominal fee ($2/mo?) in addition to your game fee. They could use a lot cheaper storage, too; they would be storing and backing-up a flat file instead of a live database. On top of that, don't allow the characters to be deleted and restored more than once per week.
When you get tech support calls about lost characters, you just say, "Sorry, we told you to be careful but it's your responsibility. Goodbye." Your argument about protecting people from their own klutziness comes from the same kind of thinking that advocates that the government should protect people from their own stupidity. It is the root of censorship, anti-drug laws, soddomy laws, and generally anything else that the government does to trample individual freedoms in the name of protecting people from themselves.
I think you underestimate the character of a person who screws up (looses their character) and knows it's his own fault. He's not going to give up playing a game he likes just because he made a dumb mistake.
Er, they likely won't just be using straight up SCSI. Let's look at the TCO. I will say that I don't really "buy" the database argument, because my understanding is that the big guys tended to price by horsepower, not size, but I could be wrong.
Lets assume the following, using what I think are probably conservative numbers --
1. 2 million total accounts, one character each
2. 10 server active 'sites'
3. Each character uses approximately 5MB of space
4. 60% change in data set between backups.
5. Each 'galaxy' has overhead of some unknown amount, which I will not take into account in this TCO equation.
Let's consider the storage costs:
1. Each site will need approximately 1TB of data for characters; probably 2TB to be able to do flashcopy for backup purposes; assume 500GB for overhead. Note that they won't be able to use just a standard SCSI RAID, they'll need a real workhorse of a machine. Depending on how cheapie they're willing to go, they might get a mid-range FC Array like the IBM FASTtT700 or a real storage server like the ESS. Cost will run between $210k and $2 million. Per site. However, with the high load, they'll probably need something with oodles of cache, so I'd lean towards the ESS and call it $2 million per site.
2. Disaster recovery. They'll probably use something like the 3590E or H for tape; they'll probably want to store 2 weeks of data with probably 60% change per day -- that works out to about 52.5TB of data. That'll need about 3 3494 frames at ~$100000 ea. That's $300k per site. Then drives -- each drive costs about $40k, and if each drive does about 75GB/hr average and you need to back up in 8 hrs, you need at least 3 drives, plus another 4 or so for tape maintenance -- $280k per site. Tape will cost about $10k extra, per site.
3. Online backups -- this will essentially require you to duplicate the storage equipment once per site, so we end up doubling our hardware costs.
Per site, we're looking at:
$2 million for DASD
$600 thousand for tape
----
$2.6 million in storage alone.
To do the online backups, which I find probable, double that number ($5.2 million); multiply by ten sites, and you get $52 million investment cost. Divide that by 2 million characters, and your approximate cost per character is $26 in storage, per character.
Note that this doesn't even begin to take into account the recurring fees -- vendor support, which you can expect to be at least $10k per month per site, in-house technical support, which you can expect to run probably $20k per month per site, nor does it take into account ANY management software, any bandwidth to transfer to the online backup site, etc,.
More than you thought, huh? Probably by a factor of thousands.
Please write the following on a blackboard 100 times:
ENTERPRISE HARDWARE IS SIGNIFIGANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE COMMODITY INTEL COMPATIBLE HARDWARE I AM USED TO. IT IS ALSO EXPONENTIALLY MORE EXPENSIVE AS YOU SCALE.
Twinking
I don't see this changing; in a lot of MMRPGs, while alts may be big twinkers, this pales by comparison with guildmates/friends. A friend finds a second +4 Sword of the Frenzied Wampus - he'll give it to you. One character per server may actually make this worse, since there is a greater chance of picking up items that you don't want for any of your characters.
In other words, twinking will still happen - but will be even more focussed on large guilds than it is now.
Muling
Muling will still happen, but to a lesser degree. I foresee a world in which people who buy second accounts create mules on some worlds - and share the use of the mule with a friend. This already happens in some multi-character games (quite common in Asheron's Call 1 which lacks banking).
The Spying Issue
Spying could be a problem, since factional/PvP is being played up so much. However, DAOC solved this very simply - allow multiple characters per server, but they all have to be in the same faction.
The player economy
If SWG's tradeskill system is as complete as Verant say it will be, then crafting has the potential to play a big role in the game; this is a good thing in that interdependant players tends to create a good atmosphere. It is also a bad thing in that new players are dependent upon the existing economy - and if they don't find people to help them, they will have a really unhappy time; this happens already in Asheron's Call 2 which has a player economy. Only having a single character on a given server would make me less likely to craft; I don't want to craft all the time (I play to escape reality, not simulate work!), so I like the opportunity to craft for a bit and then go and save the galaxy - without having to worry about coordinating cross-server guild relationships with friends/guildmates.
Overall, I think SWG is shooting itself in the foot with this. I personally wasn't going to play anyway - Star Wars isn't my thing, and I'd hate to see a 13 year old screaming 'D3WD, US3 F33R M! L33+ J3D! SK1llZ' - but I know a few people who are considering it. Not one of them is happy about this move.
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
(and have to tread softly around my NDA) .. is that this is a dead horse.
.. err .. not highly social people, are quite often afraid of change.
.. maybe leaning towards SCS after reading some of the arguments NOT posted in that article.)
.. is that this is SOE's game ! Here is an example that WONT break my NDA :P :
.. warhamemr .. warhammer 40k etc.
.. they get tonnes of greif from their existing customers. Of course, this isn't suprising as their products are targeted at *13 YEAR OLD BOYS*.
.. 13 year old boys are pretty easy to win over - and 1/2 of them don't know the rules anyways :P [Anyone who has ever worked a Games-Day in the US or the UK know this :P]
.. they make like 1/2 a BILLION bucks a year .. they probally know more of what makes their product sell than a 13 year old kid does.
.. every year there are more and more 13 year old boys. THAT is who they target. Its called business growth people.
:
.. so they buy your product again to get the new rules ? That sounds like you can resell it countless times then :) *greed*"
.. they already own the rules, we just make sure that they are happy."
.. what do your current customers contribute to your bottom line annually ?"
.. Still .. your a very specilized company, I can see how you might turn the educated outlook of your customers to your advantage. What was the average age of your customers again ?"
.. 13"
... *NEXT!!!*"
.. imagine a company betting their entire company future on the very malliable influence of 13 year olds. That would be like letting gamers design your online game for you ... oh .. wait.
What folks need to realize here
People, especially
[anyone remember when Taco announced the subscriber member plan HERE? - rest my case.]
There are only a few folks on the beta forums who have (from a year or two ago) been saying they want mcs only. Almost everyone else is just picking a bandwagon. (I myself am neutral
What a LOT of folks seem to forget
I used to work for games workshop - you know
They make some 300 million Pounds Stirling selling toy soldiers (about 1/2 a billion US depending on exchange).
Every 3-5 years they changes the rules in their games. Fix bugs, make them easier to play etc.
EVERY TIME they do this
As a general rule, the folks who complained the loudest were the 30 year old geeks who had been playing their product for YEARS.
after all
Games-Workshop rightfully totally IGNORE all these complaints. After all
They make desicisions based on what is good for their sales, what is good for their games, and what will make them less confusing and more fun for the boys that just turned 13 this year, and have never seen it before. You see
If you were an investor, would you give capital to a company like this ?
Exec : "And each year we review our product to see if it falls into the expectitaions of our existing customer base, and if it doesnt, we take all their suggestions - and rewrite it at our expense. Just to make everyone happy."
Investor : "Oh
Exec : "well, no
Investor : "Oh, Well it sounds like these customers are very important to you
Exec : "Well, past the first six months, not that much really, since they have bought almost everything they need already. Actually most are complaining because they don't want to spend more money."
Investor : "So what your really saying, is that your letting your customer base affect your vision of your company. Hmm
Exec : 'Ummm
Investor : "oh
I mean
DiaKatana Anyone ?
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
I know there's a lot of hard-core MMORPG players here that won't be playing SWG because of this MCS vs. SCS thing (Acronym overload!). I, for one, will be playing because of Sony's decision.
One reason I've stayed away from MMORPGs in the past is because of all the chatter about "muling", "twinking", and fscked economies. I want to play an online RPG that feels like an RPG, not some twisted inventory management competition. I mean, can you imagine trying to sell multiple characters to a D&D group?
I think Sony is trying to create a MMORPG for the common man, or at least the common gamer. Flame all you want, but I think it's grand.
This
The flaw in your logic is pretty easy.
.. in a type 5 raid at LEAST ! if not redundant raids. .. not MySql) Backups, system admin salaries, DBA salaries etc.
.. let alone lost revenue and PR to counteract the negative experience.)
:P
.. Ralf's point about service size (which is only a SMALL part of this decision) is scaleability. They have to project over a 5-7 year period. and growth in that time .. So .. conservitaly , if they are expecting 1 million accounts in the first year .. they could concievably need space for 4 million accounts over a 7 year life.
.. you know how hard it is to get funding 1/2 way through a project - no matter HOW important or sucessful it has been.
You don't run a business that is BASED off a database on retail quality IDE drives you buy at bestbuy.
Were talking high speed SCSI drives
On a professional development platform (the kind you have to pay for
You don't run a game that is expected to get over a million subscribers in the first 3 months, on your brothers old 486 tripped out to run linux with a spare parts from your friends.
Not when every single MINUTE of downtime costs you money (just in Customer Service costs alone
48,000 customers won't even cover the number of copies shipping to california i bet
Of course
If you have ever worked in a professional big business position
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
First of all, let me say that I don't play any of these games (I prefer to waste my time reading slashdot and the like *ahem*), but that said....
I think what it means is "consistent with the rules/laws of the imaginary universe". If things aren't consistent, the game loses its appeal. (I guess)
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
So you can, like, crack AES & 3DES in a couple days?
How?
Maybe you should get a job with the NSA.... I'm sure they'd be interested.. especially if you can crack AES. Or maybe they'd just kill you.
Because people would simply switch to the other char and play it a minimum time and then leave it in the dark for 25 days. Et Voila !
personally whatever the decision ground8economical, buisness, Customer support, $$$) I don't care. i think it is a good idea because so much things screwing the conomics of the game which put me off in other RPG are simply higher level char having a quasi monopoly on goods and all stuff on alts.
Now if *everybody* is limited to 1 char... Then one can hope to balance economy a bit better. I wasn't interrested in SWG. Now I am !
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"Agh! More forced grouping!"
I'd prefer to think of it as a chance to get to know your neighbors. The fact is that something like 90-95% of you are unable to tell me the names and occupations of the people who live in the eight homes that lie adjacent to you: three across the street, three behind you, and the two on each side. In fact, a very large number of you have social circles that are built around your school or your job. Not only is this unnatural for humans, but it means that the groups you form are extremely homogeneous.
As any biologist can tell you, homogenous populations go extinct very readily. As any teacher can tell you, exposure to different modes of thought makes for better citizens and better thinkers.
I can't decide if I think he's incredibly pretentious or incredibly insightful for the comparisons he's making to evolutionary biological systems... in either case, it's a good sell for the game.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
1. Mules. Many characters are created just to hold lots of items
Ok, I've never played EQ or most of the others, but I can tell you that in Diablo2 the storage space was PATHETIC! It was also extremely unrealistic. It's perfectly reasonable to have strict limits on what a caracter can actively carry on his person, but if you have any sort of "storage locker" it should be a HELL of a lot bigger than your backpack! One of the reasons I got tired of the game was the hassle of moving stuff to another character.
And if you've got a house your storage space should be practically unlimited...
That box in the corner? Oh that has 300 magic rings in it. How do you like the front wall with with my collection of 40 swords hung up? Pretty, huh? I've got 30 pairs of boots under the bed and few dozen wands hanging next to the window. Just don't try to open the closet - it's stuffed with all sorts of armor.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I'd prefer to think of it as a chance to get to know your neighbors.
More often than not, my neighbours are two nine year-olds who haven't read the manual, some gibbering idiot whose only binds are PATY PLZ!!! and YOU TRADING OF ITME ME!!!, and a half-dozen others who kill characters 1/3 their level for no apparent reason.
Thanks but I'd rather play alone. Find a way to weed out the complete fucknuts on a server (or at least uniquely identify them!) and we'll talk.
Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?
Yeah...if they only had a few customers. Look, this thing is expected to be bigger than existing MMORPGs. EQ has about 500k subscribers. DAoC and UO have about 250k. Let's say they get a million.
Storing a big record for a customer is easy. Storing a million big records for your million customers is not easy. They need a database that can have a lot of big records, and handle 100k or more essentially concurrent updates to those records, in real time. This isn't a job for MySQL.
I had enough of that in EQ. I recall when my Ranger spent an hour traveling from GFay to Freeport...and then two hours trying to find someone to bind him in Freeport.
I recall guild events cancelled because we didn't have enough people of certain classes. I recall guild events saved when some people would switch from a class we had enough of to their alts of a class we needed more of.
But, what is up with their lame excuses? One excuse is
WTF? THey don't want to spend money for a bigger hard drive? Maybe they should STREAMLINE the databases some. Instead of having my weapon be stored in their database as:
$Weapon="Ordinary_Blasater_With_No_Speial_Abili
Use:
$Weapon="Pistol2"
Let my freaking client know that pistol2 = Ordinary_Blasater_With_No_Speial_Abilities_Unless
Grr... I'm going back to reading the rest of the article
[/rant]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
Jar Jar Binks made this statement to the press "Meesa nosaa liken dis, knowsaaaa, aaaaah [inaudible], oopsi."
The spokesman for Darth Vader had this to say, "We are unable to comment on this decision at this time. You don't have a problem with that, RIGHT?"
According to a press release, Luke Skywalker had this to say: "No! No! It's not true. That's IMPOSSIBLE!"
Han Solo and Princess Leah were occupied and unable to comment.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
From the "reasons" for this:
I'll say it flatly--a character record in SWG is FAR larger than you think. There's a business reality to see here. We share fancy databases over multiple servers. Said fancy databases cost $X up to a certain size. Then they cost ten times that if you go over that limit by one byte because you have to buy the "next size up."
What database system charges on a per size basis? The only thing I can think of is them talking about disk space, which should not be the killer they seem to make it out to be.
If each character record took 100k worth of storage, you could put 800k characters on about 80 gigs of storage.
And really, if you're even using 100k per character record you've got some really ineffecient data use going on.
It's not like binary data should be stored with each character. A character record should just be a reference of IDs pointing to a master database.
Besides, the way the Lucas family of companies works, if there's enough demand, they'll sell a 10-pack of characters for a higher monthly fee, and throw in some overstocked Jar-Jar merchandise.
Moderators can be so pathetic sometimes. Laugh a little.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Wow!
Moderation Totals for the parent post:
That's a record for me!
Let's see if it can be moderated any higher/lower! Come on moderators! I'd prefer it to be moderated higher so that more people will see it so they can in turn moderate it lower... but do whatever you see fit.
Sex - Find It
fancy databases cost $X up to a certain size. Then they cost ten times that if you go over that limit by one byte because you have to buy the "next size up."
Well my contribution to keeping down the size of their database will be not subscribing...
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
You have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
GW makes about 100,000,000 pounds/year in revenue and less than 10,000,00 pounds/year in profit.
http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/1675.html
According to the new Games Workshop annual report, covering the fiscal year ending June 2, 2002, the company continues to struggle with its independent retailer business in the Americas, saying of its business in that channel, "...[I]t has been hard work maintaining momentum during the year." This is the continuation of a trend that that was first noted by GW in its mid-year report six months ago, and is a reflection of dissatisfaction with the company felt by many independent retailers (see "Retailers Send Joint Statement to Games Workshop").
In response to this problem, Games Workshop appears to be stressing the opening of new stores (it opened six new stores in the Americas in its past fiscal year, bringing the total to 43) to a greater degree, "...to attract new gamers into the Hobby, and to establish a more appropriate balance between our own stores and independent retailer customer base." A second strategy is continued development of sales teams that work with independent retailers. In the UK, where its own stores account for 69% of sales, GW does "...not expect to grow significantly the number of stores...in the future," which may indicate the target mix of sales through company stores and independent retailers. But worldwide GW sales were up the same rate through independent retailers as through its own stores, indicating that with a growing pie there's enough business for both channels to grow significantly.
One channel that did not grow as quickly was the mail order/Internet sales channel, which grew at a slower 8%. The reason will come as good news to brick and mortar retailers. "The increase in direct sales was slower due in part to a deliberate reassertion of our no-discounting policy to counter some discount creep that had occurred in some territories."
Games Workshop had a great year over-all, with sales up 17% to over 100 million pounds, and after tax net profits up 49% to 8.6 million pounds.
OR Just don't allow trading between characters.!!
there, solved all your issues, and I can still have diffrerent characters to play with different friends.
You remember friends?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Valid points, however if they start alienating players BEFORE the game is out, they won't get those 30 year olds that have been playing most there lives.
Also, if yo7u are starting a business, and you present it to the community you will be targeting, wouldn't you listen to them? A) they might have valid points B) you don't have an existing client base yet c)if you piss them off, you won't last.
Now, if they where already making 1/2 billion dollars a year, and had a history, then they could get a way with it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
>And limiting to one character per account per
>server does jack shit to stop twinking for this
>crowd.
It makes em pay extra.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
...most those nine year olds are 30.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, you're right. People with the spare cash will still find a way to exploit MMORPGs. However, now they will have to pay extra for the privelege.
Verant has issues with abusing storage priveleges so they have found a counter to it. They must expect a counter to the counter.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I agree with you on static vs dynamic storage. It's academic.
Verant is merely saying that you can't expect them to foot the bill for other's abuses. i.e. maxing out their storage requirements by having every character slot full with the biggest backpacks in the storage slots.
I imagine that this measure is temporary as it will be countered. I fully expect them to allow you to have multiple characters per account but pay extra for each additional character in future.
Things appear to be shaping up quite like an arms race between the abusers and the proprietors.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Ahh... thanks hirebrand!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Lets ee:
2 million suscribes, each paying about 50 bucks to buy the game.
Ok, that takes care of almost ALL the intial investment.
then they char 10 buck a monther, so that 20 million a month (gross, obviously).
Now, if a character is taking up anywhere near 5 megs, I would be very suprised. If it is taking 5 megs and is well designed, I'll drop a brick.
I meann, you going to have several tables of stuff, and weach customer table will hve pointer to the master tqable for stuff. Hair clothing combosa, while great, are finate, so youy can define each possibility with a number. Yes you would have to actually hire someone who can do that sort of thing. If you need someone, email me.
Now, the Graphic data should be stored on the client, based on a number in the customer table(which will would have a list of each customer, with a link to a Character table that house the stats.
My point is some data for multiple characters will be redundant, and you don't need to back-up the redundant data.
OR
you could use High grade encryption(real encryption) and store the data locally. which would be secure, because you wouldn't store in key information on the client, Right?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Storing a million big records for your million customers is not easy."
actually it is, if you can design worth a damn. If you can't thaere are books that can tell you exactly how to. I have worked with databases, running 5 9, with many MILLIONS of customers.
But its not Cheap
However, if it isn't designed properly, then suddenly its a nightmare.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
still find a way to exploit MMORPGs. However, now they will have to pay extra for the privelege.
I'm not sure weather or not you caught my intent on two points...
In my oppinion "muling" items is not (or shouldn't be) an "exploit". It is stuff you got legitimately. If you have a place to store stuff I don't see why it would be so small. A "storage locker" should be a couple of times larger than what you can carry in you backpack. Heck, your character should be able to rent extra space (and should be able to do it with his fictional money).
The other thing, the "worker drone" exploit I described - you don't have to pay for an extra account to do it. Each account can have one character on each server for free. You use the extra free characters to make stuff you can't use for your main character to trade for stuff you can use on your main character.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
An "average" death in DAoC is a bigger setback than an "average" death in EQ, especially at higher levels
Except in EQ you can't just say "aw fuck it, I'm releasing" and pop back to spawn with all your gear.
DAOC gives you the freedom to explore without too much penalty except for xp & cash. [I've not played DAOC since before the underworld - I was lvl 36 when I got bored]
I enjoyed DAOC but the lack of depth was it's downfall. Degrading gear made it worthless and the stuff you needed for this level dropped frequently enough that people would generally just give it to someone of the same class walking by.
The RvR stuff was interesting but the being repeatedly creamed by level 50s was annyoing.
I'm looking forward to SWG and EQ2. I think I will buy and subscribe to them both. [I'll be on the EQ2 long-time subscriber beta too according to their blurb]
I've recently gone back to EQ and boy, is it dead!
Getting a [good] group is like finding 100pp!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
My definition is simple - rolling one or more chars for fetching junk, trade skills, running into agro cities to buy stuff, sitting
It is cheating because it offers an unfair advantage. I don't care how rich someone might be to afford two accounts, two computers and two copies of EQ+expansion packs, that should not entitle them to an advantage over other players.
You idiot moderator
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
" For that reason people choose a server that is closest to them physically, so they can enjoy a good connection"
;)
I'm "close" to my local university, but the university is about 26 hops away. That's because we're on two separate networks, and it has to go all the way out to a NOC somewhere that has inter-network traffic passed through.
Perhaps you mean logically closest
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Dishonest way of planning projects ?
.. lets say the US army, grants a 3 billion contract for a new tank, that there will be no more money after that 3 billion.
.its the same in small business.
.. you somehow manage to get the store 1/2 set up, and suddenly you run out of $$ to buy inventory. You have been selling the inventory you had to pay the bills .. now you have an empty shop and nothing to sell.
.. the SBA wouldnt even let you take out a loan for 5,000 they insist on a full 3 year business plan up front before they even consider you - as well as a 5-10 year break even plan before they grant a loan.]
.. by ralf saying 'this is what we can finantually do' [keeping in mind that he designed Ultima Online, and probally has the most experience of any MMORPG designer out there] thats probally a pretty dead on guess.
I think you have that backwards.
If you constantly need to request funds from your company to finish your project, you didn't plan it well.
THAT is how most businesses go under. Horrible planning.
You can rest assured, that when a large org
its the same in any big business org. hell .
If you take a small business loan out through the SBA, you only get the first loan, they will NEVER let you take another out until the first one is paid off.
so lets say you think you can open a retail store on $5,000
[in the real world
So saying that having to report all your $$ requirements for the life of your project up FRONT is how the real world works. its not dishonest, it just means that if you get 1/2 through a project and run out of money - that you never should have gotten the job in the first place.
SOOOO
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!