Unlimited Members Only Servers?
 

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-

YES! YES! YES! and YES!

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 :)

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 ;)

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.

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.

Members only servers get a thumbs up from me :)

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.

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.

I dont think Disney would do this only because they rely on us unlimited higher lvls to help those basic members out. If we didnt, many of them might just quit the game all together.

You do not know how great that would be for me. :)

1: Less lag from all the non-members.
2: Not so many little annoying ships firing at my ship or following me from one side of the ocean to the other.
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 ;)
4: Everytime I'm at PR or Tortuga, I sometimes have people following me around, more less spying.

It would be wow if Disney accomplsihed this. :)

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?"

You really seem to be concerned with the newbies getting to play alongside of those of us that have paid for our unlimited access. That is commendable. Pardon me if I don't care. I played on the free account, liked it, and bought unlimited access. As a matter of fact, I bought two accounts so that my kids could play and not have to get kicked off the account when I want to play. I don't mind playing alongside the newbs at all, 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.


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.


First, the "secret friends club" is your words, not mine. Second, a members only server system would actually be preferable. If we want to recruit new members for our guilds, we know where the "free" servers are, and it keeps the free accounts from interferring with our enjoyment of the game.



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. It is not much diferent than being allowed or disallowed access to a forum based on your registration. Admins can access everything on their website, and they appoint Mods that are allowed to access most everyhing on the site. The same principle applies to members only servers.

Have a good weekend.

Dude, have you played runescape? Members can get on nonmembers and members worlds...

MAYBE there'd be less people.

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.

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

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 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.


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


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.

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 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?

I mean people are stating their opinions and you are blatently bashing them. It looks like your pickin a fight with the forum.....

No. I'm not bashing them. If I'm less than civil in responses, it's only after being replied to in a less than civil manner, and much of it is simply that text is a poor nuance for conveying verbal shadings..

I've pointed out that while on a selfish level, members-only servers sound nice.

In reality, the problems they have with obnoxious players isn't going to go away. Because obnoxious players aren't limited solely to the non-paying population.

The same thing goes with laggy players.

And why exactly is it offensive to ask someone holding forth on how "easy" a project is how exactly they're qualified to talk about it?

I'm a security professional by trade, a programmer by necessity, and a game publisher on the side. And I know better than to try to speak authoritatively about something I know little to nothing about (like someone else's programming project).

If it's any consolation, I never said they had to like my responses or agree with me.

There aren't many low leveled unlimiteds.

I'm starting to have a feeling that the only negative posts are coming from limited acsess guys.

Yes, a members-only server sounds nice to me. And dude, I'm sorry if you don't like the idea of a members-only server, but some of us do. It's nice that you pointed out the negatives of one, but you don't have to dash our hopes. It's not as if Disney is actually going to do it because some people want it, and we get that. If you are so adamantly against it, why post about how bad it is more than once in a thread for it?

But I do agree with you in that it is easier to get a point across verbally.

Yes! i have wanted this to happen ever since i became a member i hop it is in the works

I would :val07: the idea of members-only servers, Imagine this:

-no noobs following you around steasling your rep
-no little light sloops shooting at your war galleon
-no friend requests every 5 seconds
-no crew requests from random people
-no noobs asking stupid questions over and over like theres no tomorrow
-a heavenly place for high levels and UA members to roam free with minimum disturbance
:117::117::117::117:
:103: :smiley44: :a37:
:aV132AQi::AlienDance::smiley16:

I made the thread to say that it was a good idea, I hope your not confusing me with the basic acess members that are sending negatives to it.

I highly doubt that Disney will ever implement a server for paying members only, mostly based on my years on playing TT. I see that they handle customer problems/complaints/issues with POTCO the same way they handle them on TT.

Their standard reply to problems on TT is to tell you to upgrade drivers, it's a latency problem or change servers to get away from the griefer/idiot/fill in the blank here ...

Personally I don't care whether we have a separate server or not - I don't take it all that seriously. Sure there are times that I get annoyed by certain people doing certain things, but it's not always new players, not always non-paying members. I'm not one of those hard core gamers, I play for fun so when something is really irritating me, it's time for a break.

As many a friend has said before, "It's a game, have fun."

Members Only Server? I'm in for it. I'll learn to code games just so I can make my own members only server!

Yeah, switching to quiet world ain't gonna be easy for a while. Due to advertisements, which is cool, we're getting more crowded. Yesterday there was only TWO quiet servers, and both were like still packed with players, I didn't even get on yesterday after I saw that, I just decided to say screw it.

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


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.


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.


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

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.


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.

Doing one does not necessarily preclude them from doing both.

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.

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.

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.

There seems to be alot of opinions flowing in regards to this subject.

I agree that some issues may 'improve' with paid access only, and basic access only servers. However in my opinion should something of this nature become available, I would hope it only by choice.

I have often tried to get friends involved/interested, and very much want to be able to play alongside and help them at the start when they are likely still basic members. The inability to do this would hamper my ability to bring my gaming friends to POTC, and likely would have the same effect on others. These people are not part of the 'problem' being addressed or we wouldnt try to bring them here.

Thanks all.

Zeppers Lvl40
http://pirates.teamofx.us


Added: Although my experience with online MMO's is limited, i have played games online for many years now, I have found that when it comes to gamers 'paying' for service, many of them tend to think this actually gives them license to do whatever they wish. Neither the factor of being an adult, or being 'paid' actually implicates any further responsibility to the end user. I have found often adults use these venues to strip themselves of thier mature moral roles, and play the role of "Griefer" as they are often termed here for thier own entertainment. The fact that these actions are primarily done on basic/free accounts is because the repercussions are fewer...

How many times do I have to say this, Unlimited access only servers are for unlimited only, like runescapes memebers only, and basics servers are accessable by ANYONE. ANYONE!!!! Do we have an understanding?

I understand these forums to be a place to post ones opinions.
I understand this is POTCO, this is not Runescape, so I fail to see your point at all.

Because Runescape does things one way, does not mean that everyone does things that way.

Zeppers lvl40
http://pirates.teamofx.us

You didn't read the first part of the ppost did you? I made thsi thread stating that we should ahve Unlimited only servers like runescape had members only servers. I was making an analogy. But people don't seem to get the unlimited only part. Servers made for paid for members only, and servers where everyone can go to.

I read the entire thread, having read the whole thread at once, one sees it is a discussion over unlimited only servers. Irregardless of what your original post said about Runescape which to assume everyone is familiar with is well... inaccurate.

Your reference to Runescape in the original post doesnt mention anything about basic servers being accessed by paid users as well, there for the topic of the discussion came to unlimited/paid only servers.

I offered my overall opinion as I thought it applied to the overall discussion. If I repeated anything anyone else said then it is likely that I agree with that persons statement/opinion. This is what communities are for.

Zeppers Lvl 40
http://pirates.teamofx.us

Forums are a place for people to come to find information and discuss aspects of the game. Debate over a topic is fine as long as you are debating the TOPIC. Please confine your debate to the topic at hand and not the 'person' - personal attacks, name calling and anything that is considered flaming, trolling etc will be deleted.

There are ways to disagree about a topic without calling each other names.

I'm jsut saying that the Unlimited servers will be for unlimited only and basics servers will eb for everyone.

Just so you know, I play runescape also, and as a basic member (I got bored paying) I can still access the members servers.

But anyway, here's my opinion. No arguments, no flame wars, I probably won't even check this thread again :) I personally don't like the idea of members only servers.

People have said that it'll reduce the lag.. but it won't. The busiest servers I've seen are always filled with paying members who are afk. And the free members never seem to bother me. If they do, I just ignore them, or block them. If they try and add me to their friends list, or crew, I just click no. It's just a click of a button :) And just because someone's a noob, doesn't necessarily mean they're not paying for the game, and you won't get followed. Some of these players you have to remember are probably kids, who get excited at seeing someone at a much higher level than them, and want to know how to get to that level themselves.

Think of everything we get as paying members....the quests, the weapons, the ability to level up to 40....don't you think we get enough privileges over free members as it is? :)

Nathaniel is merely stating the view from a whole, which is what needs to be done.
Sure, it 'would' be great. But that's not what this is about.

Clearly the only voice on here is for paying members, I'm sure there is some free account players around, but not nearly as many as the paying members. So that explains why the majority of players are for it. As only paying members would want this, nobody with a free account would ever want something like this implimented...

Yeah, thats what it's all about plain and simple. Well through my twisted eyes anyway.

I have no side in this - just an observation... Lets say there were Seperate Servers, and as you suggest if you wanted to recruit Guild members you 'hop' on over to the 'free' servers and recriut and get several new members... now - how do they follow you? If I've read the thread correctly - they couldn't. You would go back to your 'members' server and they couldn't follow because they have 'free' accounts - or - you're now back to playing only on 'free' servers in the first place...

Note - I only ask from a tech outlook - as I really don't know if other games out there have this option (like once you Guild them they can come to you? But defeats the purpose of members only servers?) - and not a take a debate side comment :)

I would assume most people that would come to these forums would be unlimited members. The quest limitations and questions about the game wouldn't require as much help as people seek here, up through the full extent of basic access. Maybe a slight few that are considering getting unlimited.

As far as "member only" servers: I think the game is too young right now. It would be nice, but Disney is still trying to make money - one way to do that is having staff's in basic members faces, showing them what they could get. Also the various different looking weapons and clothing. I would say the earliest a real chance at member only servers would be six months after the release of the next chapter. By then, the majority of new subscribers will already be here, and unlimited subscriptions will be at the plateau. Then Disney can access what the majority of paying members would benefit from (as it is a profit driven business).

You misunderstood me, I was talking to that other guy.

Reading some of these other posts, I can see how a basic member might feel about this. But from my personal experience (I haven't really noted any others, so its kinda biased,) I would still have gotten unlimited access whether or not I had ever seen any unlimiteds. I did it because I wanted to be able to do a certain quest and it wouldn't let me.

I also agree that Disney probably won't make a members-only server anyways, so it doesn't really matter what we want. They are going to do what they think they should, end of discussion.

No one cares how professional you may be so just get over it.
And no one was replying to you in a "less than civil manner", you just went ahead bashing opinions.