[MUD-Dev] Star Wars Galaxies: 1 character per server

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

From: "Travis Nixon" <tnixon at avalanchesoftware.com>
> Marc Fielding wrote:

>> But it's not simply a matter of storage. Raph described the
>> problem as follows:

>>   "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.'"

>> Seems like a legitimate problem to me.

> At the surface, yes, until you read the "sharing over multiple
> servers" part, at which point you're right back to the cost of 2
> characters on 1 server being exactly the same as the cost of 2
> characters on 2 servers.

Actually, no, you're not. Two characters on two servers costs the
PLAYER more time and effort to keep track of them, simply by
introducing the added variable of each character being on a
different server and hence in a different environment with different
people. Since people are generally lazy, many people who would not
bat an eye at two characters on one server will turn up their noses
at two characters on two servers. Thus, each such player plays one
character instead of two, reducing their need for database space to
half of what it would otherwise be.

The problem does not stop at the database space, it proceeds into
the question of how players can be encouraged to conserve space. An
SCS system makes multiple characters more of a hassle, and reduces
the number of people who will use multiple characters to a fraction
of the number who would use them in an MCS system. This is a
nontrivial savings which only gets better as you compare it to
larger character limits per server.

I also see the SCS idea as at least *incidentally* encouraging
people to go look at other servers, which is certainly a
community-building activity, and it's pretty hard to argue that it's
a bad thing. When you have an SCS system, creating a new character
is no longer a trivial activity. It requires some thought and some
deliberation and a certain degree of risk and uncertainty. I think
that's something that SHOULD be associated with a decision like
this, so I find the idea of SCS to have a whole lot of great little
incidental benefits I had never previously considered.

> I just prefer calling a rose a rose and a mule a mule.

And a spade a spade? ;)

> Either the reasoning is justifiable or not.

I think it's more a question of whether YOU think the decision has
been justified, not whether the reasoning is justifiable in and of
itself.

You know what really bothers me? I don't know what people are trying
to accomplish here. A decision has been made. It's a decision that
took a long time, and involved consideration of a lot of factors we
simply do not (and currently cannot) appreciate. And when someone
actually stands up and says "we have decided this, and while I do
not personally like the decision we have made, I am convinced that
it is the right decision" -- we give him hell for it. It's not like
he's going to go to SOE and say "look, guys, we *have* to do MCS or
we will all go bankrupt" and then they'll say "oh, all right".
That's not happening. So what the hell is the question? Whether SCS
was the right decision for SWG? We don't know; we can't see enough
of SWG to make any kind of informed decision on that matter just
yet. Whether MCS is better than SCS? Depends on the game. Whether
SCS is an appropriate choice for an MMORPG in the first place? 
Again, depends on the game.

So what exactly ARE people trying to accomplish with this SCS/MCS
discussion? Anything?


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev