Unlimited Members Only Servers?

[Ryu_Kenshin]

Like runescapes members only servers, ones only unlimited acsess members can use. It would creat less lag for the ones of us that avoid it. Quite frankly I'm getting tired of herds of light sloops following me through out the freaking waters stealing everything I shoot at, even worse, like level 1s following me in PR attacking level 18 grunts that I train on.

-Veracity-

[Chris]

YES! YES! YES! and YES!

[Angel]

I agree, however now those lvl 1s will be attacked back due to the new upgrade. That and try goin to a quieter server. It is where my home is now

[Hyde]

Omigod, there is only ONE reason that I will agree with this; because EVERY day without fail, I get a level 5 (or about) following me EVERYWHERE when I'm trying to train so that THEY can level up. I mean, I'm usually friendly... but this guy yesterday just followed me EVERYWHERE without even asking!

Please Members only servers!!! - After all, we pay for it

[Ryu_Kenshin]

I'm just tired of seeing my Black Hawk, a lone sloop, with about a hundread light sloops behind me. And some how noobs get on my ship, attack extremely high leveled things like monarches when I just wanna get to a small island and get me sunk.

[maxumw2000]

yes there could be a way you can ask for permission to join a crew because of that reason if you add someone to your friends menu you are sailing and trying to lvl your own way nxt you have a crew without asking for it.

[dangerousden]

Members only servers get a thumbs up from me

[Nathaniel Wolfson]

Members-only servers gets a *meh* from me.

It simply segregates us further from the people just trying out the game. And those people are our future recruits into the guilds. What's more, by having all the paying players kicked off into private servers, it removes us from these people's sights and gives them ZERO incentive to stick with the game or pay for it.

I know of several maxed free members. And yes, some of them are annoying kids. But maxing a free account takes a LOT of work in and of itself and shows dedication to the game.

If you're that worried about newbies following you around, simply go someplace REALLY dangerous and let something like a Seabeard "scrape" them off.

[Rackat]

The people trying out the game are going to like it or not regardless of whether we are on a Member's Only server or on the Open servers. Also, those that can't, won't, or just haven't got around to buying a subscription are still going to be on the Open Servers so they will still see some "Higher Level" players, so there is some incentive to stay with it. As well, the incentive would be additional in that they know once they are a paying member, they will get access to the servers the ret of us would be playing on.

It wouldn't be that hard to set up either. On the Choose Server list, the servers starting with Q through Z could be Member's Only, and any non-Member clicking on them would not be able to port into them. If you want to play with the gulls you can choose to, not be forced to.

[Nathaniel Wolfson]

Originally Posted by Rackat

The people trying out the game are going to like it or not regardless of whether we are on a Member's Only server or on the Open servers.

Yes, but without all the higher level players, there's nobody to display the benefits of paying for the newbs.

Also, those that can't, won't, or just haven't got around to buying a subscription are still going to be on the Open Servers so they will still see some "Higher Level" players, so there is some incentive to stay with it.

I say again, without the higher level (beyond 12) players out there demonstrating the benefits of paying, there's less incentive for newbies to pay.

As well, the incentive would be additional in that they know once they are a paying member, they will get access to the servers the ret of us would be playing on.

Wow. A "secret friends club". I've always hated this mentality. There's nothing truly different about these "members only" servers. Thus, there's no real benefit apparent to the free members. They already get penalized with level caps, half their experience taken from kills, and having to wait to get on servers as it is.

It wouldn't be that hard to set up either.

How do you know this? Simply because the IDEA is simple, the IMPLEMENTATION isn't necessarily so.

Originally Posted by AdmiralBeckett

1: Less lag from all the non-members.

Sure. But what about lag introduced by other members?

"Less" doesn't automatically mean an acceptable level.

2: Not so many little annoying ships firing at my ship or following me from one side of the ocean to the other.

Since they can't hurt you, why do you care?

3: Less friend requests and crew invites from people I don't know, I get a lot from members but it would help this problem

I'd actually like to see an option that just lets you auto-ignore friends requests.

4: Everytime I'm at PR or Tortuga, I sometimes have people following me around, more less spying.

Again, since they can't hurt you, who cares?

[AdmiralSavvy]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Yes, but without all the higher level players, there's nobody to display the benefits of paying for the newbs.



I say again, without the higher level (beyond 12) players out there demonstrating the benefits of paying, there's less incentive for newbies to pay.



Wow. A "secret friends club". I've always hated this mentality. There's nothing truly different about these "members only" servers. Thus, there's no real benefit apparent to the free members. They already get penalized with level caps, half their experience taken from kills, and having to wait to get on servers as it is.



How do you know this? Simply because the IDEA is simple, the IMPLEMENTATION isn't necessarily so.



Sure. But what about lag introduced by other members?

"Less" doesn't automatically mean an acceptable level.




Since they can't hurt you, why do you care?



I'd actually like to see an option that just lets you auto-ignore friends requests.



Again, since they can't hurt you, who cares?

There would be less people on the UA only server which doesn't go by lvl but amount of people adding up the lag.

It's just annoying when your sailing to plunder or for other reasons and you have some little light sloop on your tail the entire sailing session.

An auto-ignore friend/crew invite would be nice.

What if your in a conversation with a guildmate or recruiting for a boss battle? It's very annoying to me when I see lower lvls who don't have anything better to do than listen in on other people's conversations that don't really require whisper or acting like they are part of the boss battle crew asking all the time "are we going now?"

[Nathaniel Wolfson]

Originally Posted by AdmiralBeckett

There would be less people on the UA only server which doesn't go by lvl but amount of people adding up the lag.

MAYBE there'd be less people.

It's just annoying when lower levels...

It's called IGNORE THEM.

Also, this doesn't get fixed with a "paying members only" solution. Since not all paying members are high level.

Originally Posted by Rackat

You really seem to be concerned with the newbies getting to play alongside of those of us that have paid for our unlimited access.

No. Just telling you why Disney isn't going to do it.

but I would like it a lot better if I was playing alongside of Paying newbs that don't abuse the game features. No, it isn't guarranteed that paying newbs would be better, but one can hope.

You sound like some of these global warming fanatics. "No, we don't know that it'll make it better, but we hope it will! Support us!"

Worst reason to bandwagon EVER!

If the benfits of paying were not readily seen, how many subscripion payers do you think there would be? I bought the subscription the same weekend I started playing and haven't regretted it yet. People either want to purchase the subscription or not.

I purchased my account in a similar fashion. However, not everyone has a similar purchase pattern. Nor do some of them have the ready cash you or I do.

Being elitist simply because you chose to (and could afford to) pay immediately means nothing.

Second, a members only server system would actually be preferable

To you maybe. Based on zero facts and a lot of wishful thinking. Wonderful reasons for implementing something.

It would only take a little bit of code by the programmers to tell the servers that a member may or may not join a particular server based on thier account status.

And 43.715% of all statistics are pulled from nether orifaces. Unless you're one of the developers of the game, you have zero authoritative standing for how much or little code it would take.

It is not much diferent than being allowed or disallowed access to a forum based on your registration.

And have you ever looked into the code even a simple board uses for forum-by-forum permissions system?

I'm not talking about "Well I saw this interface and it had checkboxes". I'm talking about the underlying code. And more, have you ever had to WRITE a permissions system?

The same principle applies to members only servers.

The principle != the implementation.


Personally, I'd prefer they put more effort into the game itself, rather than some meaningless segregation.

And think about this. If it was as simple as you say, why wouldn't they have incorporated the test environment the same way? Why have a completely isolated test server environment with a completely separate game loader?

[Rackat]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rackat
You really seem to be concerned with the newbies getting to play alongside of those of us that have paid for our unlimited access.

No. Just telling you why Disney isn't going to do it.

Do you work for Disney on line services, or any place in the Disney company?

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
but I would like it a lot better if I was playing alongside of Paying newbs that don't abuse the game features. No, it isn't guarranteed that paying newbs would be better, but one can hope.

You sound like some of these global warming fanatics. "No, we don't know that it'll make it better, but we hope it will! Support us!"

Worst reason to bandwagon EVER!

I would retort with a like comment, but it would be a disservice to those reading this thread. I will say that when you pay for something yourself, you are less likely to abuse it. I would venture to guess that those of us paying for the game (you know, the adults?) would be less like to abuse the system and less likely to be griefers. Further, those of us that are paying for accounts for our children and are also players are more likely to ensure that our children are not griefers as well. But, I can’t guarantee that all parents watch their children’s on line activity as well as I do.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
If the benfits of paying were not readily seen, how many subscripion payers do you think there would be? I bought the subscription the same weekend I started playing and haven't regretted it yet. People either want to purchase the subscription or not.

I purchased my account in a similar fashion. However, not everyone has a similar purchase pattern. Nor do some of them have the ready cash you or I do.

Being elitist simply because you chose to (and could afford to) pay immediately means nothing.

You consider it elitist, I consider it no different than paying for another service. If I can afford to pay for a “member’s only/adult” server, then I should have that option. I would even pay a little extra for the privilege of such servers. It doesn’t make me elitist, it makes me discerning, Further, Disney is a capitalist venture, they are missing out on an opportunity for additional profit while driving off the very customers from which that profit could be made. If it were not Disney I would worry for the financial stewardship of the company, but surely the other Disney ventures far outweigh the POTCO revenues. Even though McDonald's serves Filet-O-Fish, I prefer to go to Joe's Crab Shack for my seafood. I pay a little bit more, but it is worth it. Does that make me elitist? No.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
Second, a members only server system would actually be preferable

To you maybe. Based on zero facts and a lot of wishful thinking. Wonderful reasons for implementing something.

Well, no kidding? To me they would be preferable, and apparently to a lot of other people that post on these forums.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
It would only take a little bit of code by the programmers to tell the servers that a member may or may not join a particular server based on thier account status.

And 43.715% of all statistics are pulled from nether orifaces. Unless you're one of the developers of the game, you have zero authoritative standing for how much or little code it would take.

I appreciate your statistical analysis. But I would say you are 99.9% fos. I have not broken open the config for the game, or the code for the servers, but I have done so for other games. How many private HALO, Castle Wolfenstein, Quake IV, and other game servers have you set up? How many have you played on? It does not take a lot to make a private server…….which amazingly enough is not different than making a memer’s only/adult server.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
It is not much diferent than being allowed or disallowed access to a forum based on your registration.

And have you ever looked into the code even a simple board uses for forum-by-forum permissions system?

I'm not talking about "Well I saw this interface and it had checkboxes". I'm talking about the underlying code. And more, have you ever had to WRITE a permissions system?

As I said above, I have not broken open the code for this game, since it is Disney, it is not the same as opening the code for server set up for Halo or Castle Wolfenstein. Since it is proprietary and Disney is not allowing us to set up our own servers, it seems to me that they ought to at minimum give us the option of member’s only servers.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Personally, I'd prefer they put more effort into the game itself, rather than some meaningless segregation.

Doing one does not necessarily preclude them from doing both.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

And think about this. If it was as simple as you say, why wouldn't they have incorporated the test environment the same way? Why have a completely isolated test server environment with a completely separate game loader?

Perhaps so that they can control access easier? Perhaps so that they can keep everything separate so that there is no bleed over between the beta and open from the tester’s computer settings? Only Disney knows, and so far they’re not telling.

You don’t have to agree with those of us that would like to see this option, but there really isn’t a necessity to be such an *** about your disagreement. Perhaps the sarcasm meter from both sides would calm down.

[Nathaniel Wolfson]

Okay, the nested comments are getting a bit much. I'm going to cut and paraphrase.

"Do you work for Disney on line services, or any place in the Disney company?"

No comment.

"I would venture to guess that those of us paying for the game (you know, the adults?) would be less like to abuse the system and less likely to be griefers."

Again, this is based on nothing more than your perception of a stereotypical griefer profile. Are SOME adults less likely to be griefers? Sure. Are ALL adults less likely to be griefers? No.

"Well, no kidding? To me they would be preferable, and apparently to a lot of other people that post on these forums. "

Lots of ideas sound good (or preferable) until you get down to the brass tacks. That's when a lot of this stuff starts looking less and less workable.

"but I have done so for other games. How many private HALO, Castle Wolfenstein, Quake IV"

Problem! You're comparing a series of FPS with explicit client-configurable server functionality to a completely controlled MMO.

Apples and cashews.

"Doing one does not necessarily preclude them from doing both. "

I agree with you, in theory, but as it appears right now, yes it does.

"You don’t have to agree with those of us that would like to see this option, but there really isn’t a necessity to be such an *** about your disagreement."

First, we've already had one mod intervention for name-calling. We don't need another.

And I'm not trying to be. And if you choose to define not agreeing with you in a blunt and forthright manner as being that way, the problem is entirely yours.

Again, you don't have to like or agree with what I say, or even how I say it.

[Rackat]

Okay, the nested comments are getting a bit much. I'm going to cut and paraphrase. Agreed.

"Do you work for Disney on line services, or any place in the Disney company?" No comment.
Too bad. I Would like to have known for certain, but understandable if you do not want to say. I don’t like “no comment” because it can be read to imply that you do work for Disney in some capacity, but it may be a red herring to try and influence the discussion.

"I would venture to guess that those of us paying for the game (you know, the adults?) would be less like to abuse the system and less likely to be griefers."

Again, this is based on nothing more than your perception of a stereotypical griefer profile. Are SOME adults less likely to be griefers? Sure. Are ALL adults less likely to be griefers? No.

Again, yes, it is my opinion and perception. The term “Stereotypical” automatically implies that enough people are characterized in that manner that they may be grouped as such. If there is a stereotypical griefer for POTCO, why not try to alleviate their influence?

"Well, no kidding? To me they would be preferable, and apparently to a lot of other people that post on these forums. "

Lots of ideas sound good (or preferable) until you get down to the brass tacks. That's when a lot of this stuff starts looking less and less workable.

Understandable. I was basing my opinion on past experience with other games.

"but I have done so for other games. How many private HALO, Castle Wolfenstein, Quake IV"

Problem! You're comparing a series of FPS with explicit client-configurable server functionality to a completely controlled MMO.
Apples and cashews.

I did state as much in my prior post. I explicitly stated that Disney is keeping this proprietary and therefore we cannot make our own servers. That does not mean it can’t be done, just that Disney thus far is not willing to allow us to make our own servers or create member's only/adult servers for us.

"Doing one does not necessarily preclude them from doing both. "

I agree with you, in theory, but as it appears right now, yes it does.

As it appears right now. But that is why this was posted as a suggestion/request. If enough people like the idea, perhaps Disney will acquiesce to our requests.


"You don’t have to agree with those of us that would like to see this option, but there really isn’t a necessity to be such an *** about your disagreement."

First, we've already had one mod intervention for name-calling. We don't need another.

Well, I was going to go with “act like a Democrat Party Symbol”, but I didn’t want to offend Democrats.

And I'm not trying to be. And if you choose to define not agreeing with you in a blunt and forthright manner as being that way, the problem is entirely yours.

Again, you don't have to like or agree with what I say, or even how I say it.

There is a little thing called tact, it goes hand in hand with manners. Just because you are behind a monitor doesn’t mean that you are entitled to be rude. The reactions to your posts have been negative because of the negativity you put forth in your posts.