Unlimited Members Only Servers?

[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?

[Angel]

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

[Nathaniel Wolfson]

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.

[Ryu_Kenshin]

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.

[TomorrowAlpha]

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.

[Chris]

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

[Captain Fireskull]

I would 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

[Ryu_Kenshin]

Originally Posted by TomorrowAlpha

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.

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.

[Lady Freckles]

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."

[Davy]

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

[Ryu_Kenshin]

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.

[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.

[Dr. Zeppers]

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...