|
Nagitof
|
 |
« on: October 10, 2008, 11:34:02 PM » |
|
Can there be a way that those with gold accounts can share a server as local host? Its mainly for Group server's.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sjums07
Guest
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2008, 09:31:58 AM » |
|
you mean so you for examlpe can share a server with me so both you and me can update hardware, reseach manage transfers etc.?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2008, 09:53:50 AM » |
|
I believe this have been suggested before, both as now (buying groupservers and in other kinds (like giving some people access to an already existing owned server). This could be very useful for every group and to people who simply are working together.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 15, 2008, 10:25:41 AM by Arthur Dent »
|
Logged
|
My sweet Eleonore, show no fear,
for the fearful riders are all ear,
and they smell and tastes every tear.
But more importantly: They aren't here!
Therefore there is no reason to fear.
Not until they ride again, my dear.
|
|
|
|
Adramalech
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2008, 10:22:00 AM » |
|
it's also in my mainframe idea, but then it has many new options,
very good idea,
also, newbs can team up to be less noob and grow faster for example,
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sjums07
Guest
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2008, 10:53:03 AM » |
|
yeah :D there are lots of possebilities :D
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Nagitof
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2008, 05:01:07 PM » |
|
you mean so you for examlpe can share a server with me so both you and me can update hardware, reseach manage transfers etc.? Yes, the server will be fully shared by whoever it is shared by. Any IP changes will be updated for both owners. But to but a little safty, the player who bought the server can choose who can have a local host acess. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Raistlin
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2008, 05:11:52 PM » |
|
I think I can offer a suggestion to make this substantially more usable. Right now, the biggest problem I see is that if an alliance between two players breaks down, the one who DIDN'T buy the server takes a substantial hit. We can't let them get their HPD back, because that creates new possibilities for abuse (for details see my comments in the suggestion thread about HPD refunds), but I think that as a requirement for a shared server, everybody who wants in would have to contribute a server of their own. The stats of the shared server would be equal to the sum of all the smaller owned servers, and any upgrades you bought would go to the shared server, until you quit. This is, of course, still abusable, but it's the best I can think of at the moment.
(Why it is abusable: Suppose the alliance consists of two players. The first one's contributing gateway has 10000 MHz, 1000000 Memory, and 1000 gigs of hard drive space, but only the starting 5 bandwidth. The second player has 550 Mhz, 32kb memory, and 2 gigs storage, but a 500,000 Kb/s connection. The second player would join up, use their bandwidth to upload and infect, then disconnect, protecting the hardware on the other computer.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RavenXP
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2008, 12:08:22 AM » |
|
Yeah, I see this as good suggestions. However it is very much abusable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Seb
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2008, 09:55:18 AM » |
|
I think the two players hit 'attempt to buy server with- *they insert a name here* 10,000
then it checks if the player exists, if he/she does, then it sends a message along these lines:
"Player X has attempted to buy a dual-operated server with you, if you accept at the 'hardware' page, you will pay 10,000 HPD, and both of you will gain control of a new server.'
if an alliance breaks up, an owner can 'withdraw server ownership' and either:
or
attempt a Hardware transfer? (attempts to take hardware from co-op server, message sent to other player, they then enter an 'offer' of how much they want. The minimum someone can get will be 25% of the server resources.
or attempt to destroy server? this puts in two programs, a server shutdown, and a mini-revelation kind of thing. you start the mini-rev, and then try to shut-down the serve, (three hours) before they can access it, this disables both of you from getting it.
the mini-rev can be remote-activated from your gateway when it is complete, (6-10 hours?) and will destroy the server completely.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Adramalech
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2008, 10:04:58 AM » |
|
my idea in the mainframing suggestion was a mainfram server, which is very bad (not upgradable maybe)
and you get the performance from progs that you can run on your own servers, whcih take some of their
performance, and add it to the mainframserver.
(the hardrives should be bought for the mainframe i think, and a to limit the servers that can join the mainframe server,
so if you want more servers join the mainframe, buy ectra slots.)
like:
2 players,
server 1`has 5000 Mhz 500Kb 100BW
server 2 has 2000 Mhz 1000Kb 120BW
they run a prog that takes 10% of their performance, (higher version prog, more perfromance taking)
so if they connect to the mainframe server, it now has 700Mhz 150Kb 22BW, (and in my idea a 25% soft version improvement and 5%per server speed boost)
something like that, the numbers are very likely to be altered, and ofcourse, this mainframe is crappy, but what if 20 players joined along with a 50% perfromance taker? That would be more nice.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
