Frankly, I certainly hope this isn't the case. The idea sends very unpleasant cold chills down my spine!
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
Some lesser programmers think they're doing "future proofing" while unnecessarily overcomplicating the present for a future that may never happen. I've never heard so much as a rumor of a "player run item store" and must have missed those Stratics threads.
If there are plans to merge shards (mind that we've repeatedly been told there are none), then the inventory can simply be rebuilt then, just like inventories are being built now. It makes no sense to keep one huge set of data right now, again for for a future that may never happen. Now, if there's any plan to allow searching on another shard, it's easy to have a query look at other selected databases. It's insignificantly less efficient than a single query that looks for several values in a "Shard" column, particularly when weighing indexing costs.
Meh, talk about shard merging has been going around for years. It gets talked about, then it fades, then it comes back. No idea how you would pull it off with all the issues around housing. However, I tend to never rule anything out. Just because one dev team at one point in time says "no way...never" doesn't mean that 6 months down the road another dev team wouldn't look at the options.
A player item store was just something I was thinking of. The model for it already exists with what Sony did with the "Sony Station" or whatever it was called for EQ/EQ2/SWG/whichever games were actually incorporated into it. I think that got started back in 2005 or 2006? Not a bad idea really. EA sets up an ebay-like framework, then lets the playerbase populate it with items. Sales would be direct from player account to player account for real cash, with EA taking a nominal fee for "administering" the system. Again, it's been done before, so nothing new for the MMO world. Might be a good little side revenue generator for EA actually. It might also financially cripple some third party sites where that exact type of interaction is taking place, but where the revenue is kept by the third party site and out of EA shareholder's wallets.
I have taken a whopping 3 database classes, well Access - so possibly not even really database, depending on your viewpoint, and have no idea what a "lesser" or "greater" programmer would do. I only know enough about databases to be ***Dangerous***. I do know that maintaining a lot of separate things, rather than one consolidated and well planned one, is really a pain in the butt. If I was in charge, and someone came to me and said "You have two choices, 1. Make 24 separate databases that can't talk to each other without additional programing and leave you no paths forward without a lot of additional work and time, or 2. Make 1 database that keeps track of everything for the entire game and will give you many different options for the future", I would choose 2. Maybe that's just me.
Most of the dev team probably falls into the "greater" programmer category though, so I'll leave the decisions on how to best code the game up to them.
As I said, we've been repeatedly told there are no plans for shard merging. This is from the Devs themselves. It's not impossible from a technical perspective, but it is impossible insofar as pleasing the playerbase. Until the Devs themselves suggest it as a possibility, it isn't even worth considering as a possibility.
Sony Station is a way for players to buy virtual currency to buy in-game items, like with many F2P games. But do you really envision EA or Broadsword ever considering a system whereby players sell things to each other for cash? Is there enough demand for all the programming hours required for this project, and how much revenue would it really generate? Would it be for other games? UO alone is not worth such an undertaking, and the potential fraud makes it even less worthwhile. It gives a headache just thinking of how few hours would pass before the first chargeback and accusations. So no, it isn't a realistic idea.
The only computer class I ever took was FORTRAN, which at the time was deemed essential for scientists and engineers to know, and the CS department was ranked as one of the best in the country. My database experience is professional. Now, I've only designed, supervised roll-outs and administered databases, to where I could tell the low-level coders where things were going wrong, so some might say I know nothing meaningful about the subject. You don't have to believe me when I say that when the same processes and procedures are consistent for databases, it takes insignificantly more effort to maintain a lot of smaller databases than one big one. Just keep in mind that UO has been doing that since the beginning.
A lesser programmer spends too much time on something that's nice but has a low likelihood of future implementation. If someone gave you those two choices, then the person doesn't understand UO's structure at all. Until transfers, players couldn't initiate transferring data from one shard to another, yet as we've seen, the design did not inhibit transferring. It was implemented very well without fundamental changes to storage. It's one thing to make a database very modular and open-ended for future expansion, but another to make one unnecessarily big structure. Always ask yourself: "Though we can put this in, will it be worth our time in case that never happens?" Like I said, if the Devs ever put in a multi-shard database search, it wouldn't take much new code to search additional, smaller databases. There would be no meaningful slowness compared to a single huge database filtered by multiple values in the "Shard" column. There's just no reason at all to put all shards' vendor info together.
are you guys all patched up?
cause its been working fine for me, was showing my daughters how to use it and results where back in seconds.
cause its been working fine for me, was showing my daughters how to use it and results where back in seconds.
Patched up on both clients and neither is working.
In regards to shards Mergers it's a terrible idea and that will be the day I finally close my accounts.
I have multiple characters on multiple shards. How are you going to merge them into 1 shard? I'd need 30 accounts slots at least to migrate the characters (time and equipment).
Each shard in UO has a unique feel to it and I enjoy logging into whatever shard suits my mood and playstyle.
If you want to play on a populated shard login to Atlantic. There is no good reason to force others to do the same by advocating a shard merger.
I prefer playing on lower populated shards with the exception of being able to sell and trade goods (for which I venture to Atlantic).
Lastly , not that it matters, but as far as databases go once you have multiple databases it's very easy to import and consolidate them into one. Doing the reverse isn't as easy.
Why combine multiple databases into one when your only going to create a bigger query with longer look up times?
In regards to shards Mergers it's a terrible idea and that will be the day I finally close my accounts.
I have multiple characters on multiple shards. How are you going to merge them into 1 shard? I'd need 30 accounts slots at least to migrate the characters (time and equipment).
Each shard in UO has a unique feel to it and I enjoy logging into whatever shard suits my mood and playstyle.
If you want to play on a populated shard login to Atlantic. There is no good reason to force others to do the same by advocating a shard merger.
I prefer playing on lower populated shards with the exception of being able to sell and trade goods (for which I venture to Atlantic).
Lastly , not that it matters, but as far as databases go once you have multiple databases it's very easy to import and consolidate them into one. Doing the reverse isn't as easy.
Why combine multiple databases into one when your only going to create a bigger query with longer look up times?
Don't know where this comes from. I'm fine with the shard I'm on. Also, I'm not advocating anything. Just pointing out that what is happening in the inner workings of a large multinational corporation may not always be discernible to we players. The dev team may have some reason they set up vendor search in the way they did and we as players may never have any idea as to why exactly it was done in that manner.
I don't play on multiple shards, so as far as characters go, it wouldn't affect me directly. However, I can only imagine the frustration and anger that people with cherished characters on multiple shards would go through. Housing would be a big deal too.
After reading a bit on how Sony has handled it https://www.everquest.com/news/imported-eq-enus-51238 ...ouch. I can see why talk of mergers comes up from time to time, then gets dropped again.
