Speculation: How many Uru's?

Gondar · **Posted:** Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:12 am

How many can a standard gigabyte hard drive hold? Lesse... one gigabyte? None. The data files etc took about 2gb.

It'll depend how much is free... generally for every few megs free above the base size, one.

How does this work? Simple. Why do you have to reinstall ALL of the data for each compile and binary? Have one unified data folder, with all the ages and avatars etc. Then have any nescessary clients connect to that one for their data. If they need to add, it goes into the unified. If they need to overwrite, you can tell it to update to the main folder, or download to a seperate override for that one compiled client.

Basically, this way lets you have the least data for stuff that is drastically spread. As it goes though it'll fail if for some bizarre reason someone makes a version that is different in handling files. Offhand I'd hope we can unify the client so that it can be one client for all shards and server versions, and will be able to parse files into a main and override folder, so that if a shard needs version x of say Ae'gura, it'll load version x. If it needs "ThisShard Version Y" it'll load one from that shard's specific override (and download new versions to that one only without overwriting the base X in the main folder).

If it's programmed right, a computer can hold as much as it needs until it runs out of space. And as Uru is a few gigs compared to the few hundred computers hold, this'll be a while.

semplerfi · **Posted:** Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:26 am

I had 7 different setups back in my Shard hoppin' days. 2 were The MAZE AGE version 2 & 3. 2 were ALCUGS. 1 clean one for D'mala. Each was properly labeled & iconned so it was nothing to keep up with.

The key was to keep a clean un-used master copy and build off it to a Shards specs.

I do not care how many variants there are. I will do wutt evah it takes to play. :wink:

Drakmyth · **Posted:** Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:11 pm

I only briefly skimmed over the posts in this topic so if this has been brought up before feel free to ignore it.

I suspect that things will work out very similar to how they did with the id Software game "Doom". Many many client and server branches will be created, each having different purposes, ideals, or just simply someone wanted their own version. Over time, people will naturally converge on the most useful and popular versions, while the rest will simply fizzle out. These versions may share many traits, but will probably be different on key issues. Eventually things will settle down and while we may not have one overarching client/server version, there won't be so many as to be unmanageable.

As of right now, from what I can tell, there are about 5 or 6 doom source ports that are still actively used. All the rest have either faded away, or have been folded into these few. For the most part, these ports all have different purposes. ZDoom for innovating the possibilities of what can be done, Doomsday and Risen3D for improving graphics and 3D presentation, prBoom and Chocolate Doom for providing near perfect compatibility with the original game engine, Skulltag for improved multiplayer experience. I'm sure I'm missing some, but the point is that over time the source port wars ended and only the best and brightest were still around at the end, each with a significantly different purpose than the other survivors.

While Uru is slightly different in that it has to worry about server versions too, I suspect it will be largely the same deal. Various client ports will surface, with a long "port wars" period for a while, and eventually things will settle down on a small selection of clients, each with different purposes. The same will likely not happen with the servers though. The servers I see more like webservers, where each one does things better and does things worse than other types, and it is up to the server admin to determine which server is best for their wants and needs. The servers should ideally work independently of the clients, and so the casual user will not have to worry about what servers each shard is using.

I propose that when the source is released, and source ports begin springing up like rabbits, we just ensure that the central, golden client is the most accessible to new players, and allow them to choose which client they prefer themselves. For those that are worried we will need multiple installations to visit various shards, if the system is set up correctly, all clients will be able to connect to most, if not all servers. However, if this is not the case, and server/client pairs are released with the intention of being used together and with no other combination, I have no doubt in my mind that someone will create a client will the ability to connect to all servers to alleviate that specific problem.

Rudolfson · **Posted:** Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:44 pm

I think that there will be only a few. We don't know the issues we're facing on how to get even one URU-live up and running. My guess is that maybe two will surface within a resonable future. If there is an interguild project run URU-live that one will be most attractive to the majority of users (if not for the developers). Then as ports and stuff are produced along with tutorials on how to set up a Mystonline server. More small-server run URUs will pop up. It is important to realize that this diversity is not thretening competition. It broadens the userbase and knowledgebase, as long as nobody is frowned upon.

Marten · **Posted:** Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:05 am

My reply to the original question, How many URUs?:

As many as it takes.

FreeLanZer · **Posted:** Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:02 am

Drakmyth! A fellow Doomer I see!

On topic: What would be great would be if there was one Uru client and one shard but with multiple customized neighbourhoods and various custom or customized ages to just link to. That way you wouldn't have to leave your friends behind if you wanted to meet up at one of The Guild of Comedy's events or check something new out from the Guild of Writers..
There would also still be room for those who wanted to experiment with the core of uru and people could then just link to that specific age and check things out.
- Every aspect and desire, united.

Norfren · **Posted:** Thu Dec 25, 2008 5:59 pm

Remember, just what happened with UU - a lot of shards had been set up and many people (hundreds or thousands) entered each, many of us had accounts on 4-5 shards or even more. But bear in mind that Uru never was/is/will be as popular as WoW or any other similar MMORG. After the initial enthusiasm there was a sharp drop in the number of the actual UU players. The shards were usually empty, lonely explorers or a few friends together were roaming only, apart from a small group of regular members (2-3 dozens/shard) who met weekly at a certain time. New members kept joining the shards, but most of them became quickly frustrated when no one could be found in the cavern.

I'm quite sure that we're looking forward to the same behaviour. There will be surely many shards and if they will be technically different, each one uses a separate version and would require a seperate set up on the client side, the situation will be even worse - the new Myst Online will come to a deadlock. Therefore I'd vote for a centralized control "guild of maintainers" - they should accept the suggested modifications of the game engine and then the corresponding files would be introduced to every shards. Similarly with the new ages. Of course, there might be - and surely will be - private shards as playgrounds of small communities, but for the majority of the players there should be a series of identical shards.

Mac_Fife · **Posted:** Thu Dec 25, 2008 7:10 pm

Norfren wrote:

... but for the majority of the players there should be a series of identical shards.

If they were indeed identical, then it would actually be more useful to pool their server resources together into a single shard. The MO:UL server code is "scaleable" in a way that the UU servers were not, so in priciple a distributed server cluster ought to be viable, and would provide a means of avoiding many of the negative aspects of the UU era Norfren refers to. How achievable that is in practice remains to be seen, though.

Rusty_Russell · **Posted:** Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:42 pm

There are definitely lessons to be learned from UU, Norfren. It's possible that there were too many too small shards. Footfall will eventually determine viability. My crystal ball - 5 lasting shards at most.

Neptin · **Joined:** Fri Nov 10, 2006 4:06 am **Posts:** 28

I'm not sure how many version of Uru there will be. But, I'd have to agree with those suggesting that you can open Uru, and somehow see all of your options.

The only other multiplayer game I play is Descent 3. While it is a great game, the mutliplayer community is VERY limited. Why? Because the in-game link to the server list went down years ago and there was never an official patch released to point to an active server list. So, a player would have to track down IP address of servers in order to join a level.

I'm not sure how it would be done. But, It seems like an explorer shouldn't have to search through MystOnline.com, UruObsession.com, MYSTcommunity.com, Ubi.com, etc just to find a server with active players. I remember with Uru Live, I think, it loaded a webpage when you first started the game. So, all all relevant information was there.

D'Lanor · **Posted:** Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:24 pm

Mac_Fife wrote:

If they were indeed identical, then it would actually be more useful to pool their server resources together into a single shard. The MO:UL server code is "scaleable" in a way that the UU servers were not, so in priciple a distributed server cluster ought to be viable, and would provide a means of avoiding many of the negative aspects of the UU era Norfren refers to. How achievable that is in practice remains to be seen, though.

FYI, according to the Untìl URU Server Configuration Wiki the UU servers were scalable. I am not sure if anybody ever used that setup though.

Brainz · **Posted:** Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:06 pm

erm, forgive my total ignorance, .....

but if we have the source code, cant some of the program wizards make a nexus type object/age that will make the links possible between servers and shards?

so that the whole of the experience is 'seamless'

SCGreyWolf · **Posted:** Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:27 pm

Brainz wrote:

erm, forgive my total ignorance, .....

but if we have the source code, cant some of the program wizards make a nexus type object/age that will make the links possible between servers and shards?

so that the whole of the experience is 'seamless'

Yes.

(But we don't actually have the code yet...)

Rusty_Russell · **Posted:** Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:40 pm

That's a "not necessarily". I'm not sure that every shard will be on the same network.

SCGreyWolf · **Posted:** Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:26 pm

Rusty_Russell wrote:

That's a "not necessarily". I'm not sure that every shard will be on the same network.

Well, I was responding to the "can't we" part. We can certainly work on what he suggested, we just can't make the shard operators use it.

Speculation: How many Uru's?

Who is online