Serving MOUL Peer To Peer

[Marten]

Dump the vault. If there is no central "authority", there need not be a central repository. Each client can keep track of it's own avatar/game states. This opens the door for crackers but does it really matter? If Doe Doe hacks into the files and learns x, y, z; how does that impact Jane John? Without a central vault to corrupt, it shouldn't be much of an issue. Now if Doe Doe comes flying through Gahreesen on a broomstick pulled by 8 tiny reindeer; an indignant client can just drop the connection to Doe Doe's IP. If the Indignant Client disallowed updates from Doe Doe; then Doe Doe would be flying through the air on nothing unless, of course, the broomstick was thought to be hidden somewhere.

With no vault, if I log into Uru from one computer, and then later log into it from a different computer, how is the information about the last locations of rocks, the completion of various Ages, and even my last set of clothes, going to get from the first computer to the second without me having to take additional steps that are not necessary in the present model?

I'm already annoyed at Jalak settings, chat logs, and KI images being per-computer for Uru, and UI addons being per-computer for World of Warcraft. Please don't do the same thing to all the other settings. Imagine in World of Warcraft, logging in onto an avatar and finding that he is suddenly level 30 instead of level 80, because you leveled him up on another computer. That's what it would be like if age progress is saved locally.

[kaelisebonrai]

EPIC thread necromancy, batman!

note that you're responding to a post from 2008, Marten >.> (I assume JWPlatt is well aware, already =P)

[JWPlatt]

Actually, Marten responded because of my post of Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:39 pm (ET).

The amount of time passed since I proposed the idea doesn't make it unworthy in the new light of a developing client. The biggest blocking issue was a lack of an open source client... Now it's much more relevant and possible. If it's just me you don't like, you can still take an objective look at the idea.

[Lontahv]

JWPlatt, as a friendly suggestion, please repost ideas like this in a new thread rather than replying to a very very old thread. If this discussion gets very large, I'll have to split this thread.

[kaelisebonrai]

Actually, Marten responded because of my post of Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:39 pm (ET).

The amount of time passed since I proposed the idea doesn't make it unworthy in the new light of a developing client. The biggest blocking issue was a lack of an open source client... Now it's much more relevant and possible. If it's just me you don't like, you can still take an objective look at the idea.

I'm well aware why marten responded. =P You were the necromancer >.>

Marten, however, quoted and responded /to/ a post from 2008.

This also has nothing to do with anyone disliking anyone else - reposting, as lontahv suggests, would've been the correct behaviour. =P

Its an interesting topic, but necromancy isn't the answer. =P

[JWPlatt]

Odd how the "Guild of Writers" chooses when and how to go by "the rules." I don't see the difference between starting a new thread verbatim and continuing this one. Or splitting a thread by time rather than topic. But whatever... The idea has been planted.

[OHB]

OK...both of you. The thread's open now...who cares who was replying to who...if it's a valid topic to bring back up...discuss it.

Personally, without reading /all/ the details would like to see some investigation into an idea like this. It would need a /really/ custom client and a /really/ custom server...but creating a system like this would have lots of benefits.

[diafero]

It is however considered bad nettiquette to revive a thread that was dead for 2 years, which JWPlatt obviously does not know. This is not at all specific to the GoW but generally used in the internet. There are good reasons for this: People who joined within the last 2 years should not have to re-read the whole thread, people who posted back then might have left or forgot what they wrote why, so it's pointless to reply to their old thoughts, and last but not least new facts or developments of the last two years might have drastically changed the matter talked about.
Instead, one should create a new thread, and - if considered necessary - add a link to the old thread plus a short summary, so an actual discussion based on today's facts and opinions, with today's members, can be made.

[Tsar Hoikas]

Please check the date of the last post before replying to the thread. HOLY EPIC THREAD REVIVAL, BATMAN! is not cool.

Locked.