Split Epic and Freedom code/rulesets

[GroeneAppel 373]

Nearly every single update seems to affect either freedom or epic in a bad way.

It's really time to split up the code so both sides can enjoy the game to its fullest.

This way for example freedom players can enjoy their fast guards again, and epic can finnaly have it's animal cap removed.

 

Neither freedom or epic should have to suffer from mechanics added to solve problems which are non existant on the other side.

A different playstyle means a different set of rules.

So split the code between Epic and Freedom.

 

 

 

Ps: I cannot speak for chaos, but I suspect that they would enjoy having their own ruleset aswell.

Edited February 4, 2014 by GroeneAppel

[Devily 626]

I think we have had more of there threads? Atleast i know we had more discussions about this.

 

I always give a +1 Since its bothering me also last couple of updates.

 

But splitting a code is not something they just do in a week i guess?

[Tpikol 1076]

i thinkthis would be the best for everybody,but for some reason devs dont want to do it,so it seems like it wont happen.

[solmark 570]

I think it makes sense to do this since both sets of 'customers' want markedly different things. I doubt this would happen, however, since I am guessing the effort to manage two code bases would be beyond Code Clubs resources

 

In a perfect world of plentiful resources, it would be ideal. Different rule sets, kingdoms, settlements, wars, uniques etc. This would avoid the endless debates about making changes, and we wouldnt have to worry about the impact of that Epic changes have on Freedom etc

Edited February 4, 2014 by solmark

[GroeneAppel 373]

I think we have had more of there threads? Atleast i know we had more discussions about this.

 

I always give a +1 Since its bothering me also last couple of updates.

 

But splitting a code is not something they just do in a week i guess?

Afcoarse, I'm sure that it would take time. But in the end it's better for everyone.

[Devily 626]

I think it makes sense to do this since both sets of 'customers' want markedly different things. I doubt this would happen, however, since I am guessing the effort to manage two code bases would be beyond Code Clubs resources

 

That also, I think 2 codes takes alot more time and effort to keep updated and in working order. Any way it is there choice of choosing for it or not. I don't think they want to spend time into it since it has always bin this way.

[Blazer 566]

+1, and please add a poll to this

[Alec 732]

Not enough dev resources sadly.

[Elen 1013]

-1 ~ I'd rather see one server type.

[GroeneAppel 373]

-1 ~ I'd rather see one server type.

Can I ask you why? Because i'm quite curious to hear if you have a possible solution for the issues at hand.

[Rushy 48]

+1 as freedom and epic players have drastically different suggestions and ideas, I think freedom players get bored and like to suggest things on a whim which alter game play and add bugs.  I presonally want ZERO new features and want existing features to be fixed and general optimisation.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Rushy

[Elen 1013]

Can I ask you why? Because i'm quite curious to hear if you have a possible solution for the issues at hand.

Oh there would be so many issues to resolve for a one server system lol. I will not even try to address epic/freedom skill merges or anything right now, too much to think about. That would just have be be hammered out and would be a hard process (and is getting harder each year). I will address my dream-server though. I liked the older system we had of player reputation and outlaw did allow for limited pvp on predominately safe servers while giving an incentive to take risk.

So my dream would be a unified server with two main areas. Think of eve with the high-sec, lowsec thing... I could pk you anywhere, if I am willing to accept the consequences.

So you would have:

• A safer central area where tower guards would auto help someone being attacked and pmks could not be planted. In this area you could still be attacked but your deed could not be raided and your corpse cannot be looted and you would not lose skill for a pvp death. Keep killing people here and eventually you would go outlaw. Certain things wouldn't work here, such as that volcano rod thing. Artifacts could not be carried here and would just drop on the ground before entering the "safe zone".
• Then there would be the larger outter ring of less safe land where pmks rule, your corpse is lootable, and your deed can be raided. Killing someone here has no repercussion. Probably have higher end/different resources available out here.

It would look something like this, except with more effort put into the design.

I think the grand trick to good pvp is going to be subtle reasons that generate continuing conflict rather than the easy fruits.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Elen

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

I'd definitely want to live in a world where features intended for other clusters negatively impact my experience every now and then. I don't think we'll ever see that however because it could be a nightmare for the dev team, particularly one as small as Wurm's.

If the dev team did the branch they'd have two separate game codes to maintain, which could lead to bug fixing and further development taking twice as long. Any fixes, modifications or new features that would be relevant for both clusters would have to be implemented and tested separately, because once you branch the code you can't be certain that the same code works on both servers any longer. Differences in the code can cause common fixes or additions to be blocked because one branch of the code or the other won't run stable with it because of it, and as long as any transfer between the two clusters is possible concurrency in common updates would be necessary.

Even if these issues could be overcome, I don't think Wurm can afford to drop the development pace. Maybe if the dev team was much larger?

Edited February 4, 2014 by EliasTheCrimson

[GroeneAppel 373]

Text

 

I actually do like that idea. I can see how that would lead to keeping both freedom and pvp lovers happy. 

Though the odds for that happening do seem rather low.

 

Perhaps if Rolf ever went on with his original plan to reset the epic maps this could happen.

[KanePT 698]

Although this might be nice, separating code isn't feasible with current dev team size. Basically it would mean managing two different games (3 if chaos also has its own ruleset), which would be too much of an effort for the current team. Not to mention it could be disastrous for Wurm as a game. There's no denying that the vast majority of players play PvE, and that Rolf focuses A LOT of resources on PvP.

 

Oh there would be so many issues to resolve for a one server system lol. I will not even try to address epic/freedom skill merges or anything right now, too much to think about. That would just have be be hammered out and would be a hard process (and is getting harder each year). I will address my dream-server though. I liked the older system we had of player reputation and outlaw did allow for limited pvp on predominately safe servers while giving an incentive to take risk.

So my dream would be a unified server with two main areas. Think of eve with the high-sec, lowsec thing... I could pk you anywhere, if I am willing to accept the consequences.

EvE works on EvE. This would basically force PvE players to play PvP. Basically this would be equivalent to when Rolf decided to enforce Raiding on Home servers, and ensuing mayhem and loss of players.

 

What could happen is more "conditional" changes.

Like differentiated changes according to server type. There's already some ground work for this: Templar cost disparities, the curve, sorcery, scenarios, Valrei critters, etc.

Which means there's already a mechanic that allows programmers to tell the game to act differently according to which server its in.

So the key here is to add this mechanic to changes that alter the game negatively on either side.

 

So here's an example, tower guards. On freedom they were rendered almost useless. On PvP apparently its good that they don't because it seems its too hard to kill guards... So what the devs would have to do is use the same "conditional modification" that exists for templar prices, and set the speed to old values on Freedom and keep it as it is now on PvP servers.

[Alec 732]

So here's an example, tower guards. On freedom they were rendered almost useless. On PvP apparently its good that they don't because it seems its too hard to kill guards... So what the devs would have to do is use the same "conditional modification" that exists for templar prices, and set the speed to old values on Freedom and keep it as it is now on PvP servers.

 

I'm sure they copypasted the same config for both clusters.

 

 

And I think this was a case of devs don't paying attention to what they are doing, and for that there is not spliting coding that would fix it.

But after almost a year in here, I'm kinda getting used to devs pumping out ninja updates and not having proper change logs that the rest of the industry does, and all those stories of people whispering nerfs to Rolfs ear.

[Klaa 4871]

PvP of some degree everywhere was the original vision. The creation of the Freedom-pve only cluster as was more of an afterthought resulting from a certain percentage of the playerbase.

 

EDIT: Personally Im against splitting the codebase overly much, at least to the extent the gameplay differs greatly. Just makes it harder for someone to transition back and forth.

 

Not to mention the development hassles.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Klaa

[BrQQQ 2854]

I'd definitely want to live in a world where features intended for other clusters negatively impact my experience every now and then. I don't think we'll ever see that however because it could be a nightmare for the dev team, particularly one as small as Wurm's.

If the dev team did the branch they'd have two separate game codes to maintain, which could lead to bug fixing and further development taking twice as long. Any fixes, modifications or new features that would be relevant for both clusters would have to be implemented and tested separately, because once you branch the code you can't be certain that the same code works on both servers any longer. Differences in the code can cause common fixes or additions to be blocked because one branch of the code or the other won't run stable with it because of it, and as long as any transfer between the two clusters is possible concurrency in common updates would be necessary.

Even if these issues could be overcome, I don't think Wurm can afford to drop the development pace. Maybe if the dev team was much larger?

Well said. The idea is good, everyone wants to not be negatively affected by updates that weren't even intended for them. The problem is just that it's really hard to split the code and keeping it maintainable with the current dev size.

[san_tropez 394]

Not a code split but rather some internal settings/rules for how stuff works depending on what cluster it is. I know the dev team is perfectly capable of doing it, they just don't do it for whatever reason

[Marcus 33]

+1 split code