Speculation: How many Uru's?

Lehm · **Joined:** Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:56 am **Posts:** 84

Since the announcement one question has lingered in my mind. History has shown that with any Open Source project there are always different teams wanting to do different things with the code. So how many different versions of Uru will show up? I think it likely at least 2. One wanting to just restore it to its original form with maybe some code improvements and such. And one to improve it in whatever way the team sees fit.

I'm sure there are those out there that would prefer not to split the community by having multiple versions. But I think it will be alright, which ever version is best will have the most users. So I don't think people wanting to make alternate versions should be discouraged.

anyway just my thoughts.

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

realXCV · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:26 pm

semplerfi · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:30 pm

Rusty_Russell · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:31 pm

Maritova · **Joined:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:01 am **Posts:** 41

How many will show up? I can see several popping up.

How many should show up? The beauty of open source is that that's not for any one person to decide. There will be forks and merges, and people will eventually favor those that provide something they need.

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

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

Yeap. that did somehow work for until right ?
But the "how can you manage multiple version of uru" bumped onto my mind.

And I second BAD.

Paradox · **Posted:** Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:48 pm

Keep in mind that on MOUL, the Python and SDL files were downloaded from the server at login... that should prevent a lot of the issues that we saw in UU where there was vault corruption due to incorrect SDL settings. This should also prevent Python hacks that are not intended by the server admin.

Gondar · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:22 am

I wonder how much of the same architecture will be kept for file design. Say you have one folder for data and ages. And a few seperate folders for distros of the game executables and binaries needed. Each one calls on the data as needed... but that means to get a new install it's only a dozen megs at most, since the data is unified. The data servers will keep track of what works and what doesn't, so you can toss it together.

I expect an explosion of types before it starts folding back into a centralized 'pure' tree, with a few designs and ports that have added features not found in 'Uru Prime', which may or may not be added into the prime code, depending on decisions of the groups running it.

As for how that's decided, dunno. But there's an amazing balance system now in place. If they go power-hungry and get nasty in saying what can and can't go... people will literally take their ball and go play somewhere else, opening up their own trunk. Expect power-fighting to kill itself off before real cooperation happens.

Dachannien · **Joined:** Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:48 am **Posts:** 216

The more there are, the more likely this whole thing fails. If you want to try things out on your own, do so with the intention of bringing it back to the main project - whatever form that takes - as soon as you can. A divergent way of doing things may be fine for you and your close friends, but the majority of people in the community will be looking for a central authority that provides an easy way into the game. Any projects not on board with the central authority will get largely ignored, and worse yet, if the people look around and don't find any sort of central authority, they'll give up and play something else.

If we want this to be successful, we have to work together.

Trevor1017 · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:56 am

I agree. As happy as I am about Uru's return, one of my biggest fears is that there will be so many different servers that people wont know where to go, or choose stay with only a couple of them. In my mind, that defeats the main idea of Uru.

I hope we can find a way to have 1 central server along with other servers that people set up on their own or with their guilds to test things. One of my favorite parts of Uru was the community, and I would hate to have it divided and lost...

Papa Smurf · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:38 am

If the community grows (in population) as I hope it will, we will need multiple shards to spread out the space between people.

Seriously, I see no problems with multiple shards. Most people like variety and they will go to more than one shard all of the time. There is no kind of comparison between what we can now have and what UU was. None at all, the differences will be like night and day. Diversity is a good thing, especially in a growing community.

How a shard operates and the Ages it hosts will be up to the shard owner (or server operators in a cluster of shards). Will it be IC or OOC, or a combination of both? Will it be canon or will it be the wild west? Things like this will be decisions made on a per shard basis, as it should be. If people come and like what they see, they will return. If not then they won't. Voting with your feet can be quite effective in setting (and resetting) shards standards, so don't discount that effect.

Having run a UU for several years, I know that I would let IC and OOC co-exist if they wish to, but I will host Ages that I like or that the regular visitors request and I agree. If I decide to join with others and form a clustered shard, it would then be a group decision to make.

One problem in the past was the UserKI and AdminKI. Hacking of the former and pursuit of the latter caused endless problems in UU. Now we can control what runs on a shard so it would be up to the shard owner(s) to decide what, if any, KI mods will be allowed. Since this is the case, and since I know that the AdminKI was not only a good tool but a source of endless (and mindless) fun when bored, I would allow all users to have one. With some conditions, of course.

What?! The code we fought so long to keep under wraps available to the 'commoners'.

Yes, but with conditions. For example, I would allow a user full control over their Ages with any number of visitors present. The Age owner would be allowed to designate one person in that Age the same control (helps to have more than one on hand at times...lol). In public Ages, I would allow a user to have AdminKI controls as long as there are three or fewer players in that Age. To protect against abuse, I would allow all users to have a 'veto' command in their KI so if they are in an Age and being harassed by someone (one on one, two on one or one on two situations in public Ages), that one user can stop all AdminKI commands of the other person(s) in that public Age.

This is just a 'for example', not an absolute plan although I am seriously considering it. There are some pretty humorous people who have had an AdminKI and have done some hilarious stuff with it. Want to flip your friend 90 degrees, warp the smoke particles over and rotate them like they are roasting on a spit? Ever try to run the cone maze? How about altering the sky so it looks like a peaceful evening sunset? Granted, the AdminKI is not 'canon', but I know there would be a lot of people who would like some controls over their own Ages.

I can't argue with that. After all, they are their Ages, right?

Eleri · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:33 am

Ja'de · **Posted:** Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:55 am

Speculation: How many Uru's?

Who is online