Personally, I'm quite curious how it can be done without sourcecode, as much here seems to imply is possible. And by how, I mean how with detail, not like "how to play the flute: Blow in one end and move your fingers up and down the side".

With server source (and the database of assets, of course) it seems like a straight forward, if tedious, adaptation. But I can't imagine how you could get the server logic right without the code, or at least a solid spec which Turbine most certainly does not have. Even if you captured every packet for days it wouldn't convey the state that had built up, the server isn't a RESTful.

Did the WOW pirate servers start with a leak of the WOW server code? Are there any pirate MMO servers that didn't start with code? If so, how did they do it?

Meursault wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 3:36pm:


The thing is, that the casters are just as good (if not better) at rogueing and fightering than the rogues and fighters are...and they get to be casters too.

A party of DC wizard, trapper wizard, DC druid, and melee cleric is simply superior to wizard, rogue, druid, and fighter party.

Meursault wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 3:16pm:


Believe it or not, the server is actually comparatively easy(compared to the client). The server emulators were made by basically programming the server-side from scratch, based on an understanding of client-server architecture and looking at "what the game is asking for". The lions share of the work is done client-side, the server is mainly just keeping the different clients synced)

There are no art assets, the server is not sending texture packs or monster models in game-play, all of that is client-side. The server does have to have a database, but its more like what everything does, the numbers side of it(I know on my earliest WoW server I could edit weapon stats in a text document, later iterations required SQL)

A lot of stuff had to be put in by hand. My first forays into private servers left me with an empty world, items, but 0 mobs, NPCs, etc. The quests were "there" but they weren't playable, it was just the bones, so to speak. All of that stuff had to be scripted by hand.

In UO servers the community thought this was vital. Fully working servers were few and far between, the forums would berate anyone who dared ask for one. Having to script everything yourself was considered "part of the experience"

The first few wow servers I found were the same, and the development communities equally as toxic(I hang out on the Vault, and I am calling these communities toxic - that should give you some clues).

I know it was popular to tweek the games and make them less like the original, but it was usually jsut the original turned up to 11. Faster XP gains, higher levels, bigger numbers on weapons, etc. I remember back when the WoW level cap was 60 somebody made a server where the cap was lvl 255. In the UO world, some guy had made a sword that let him hit mobs that were 12 screens away.

Its all doable without source code, but much of it might be extremely tedious. These are always community projects; one guy making it by himself would go insane.

Jon Van Caneghem wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 5:47pm:

That's "Ganking" to you, scrub. Ganging is what your sister likes to do with all those old men.

i speak england how i like too spek it and ai do nott give a dammit ahahahah stop me if you can

noamineo wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 10:23pm:


Nah, this particular shining example of wit and humour is older than KNN, accountwise. Equally retarded, though.

Dullknife wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 10:45pm:


Still deserves to be on the ignore list, if this is all the wit he's capable of mustering.

Meursault wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 3:36pm:


I don't get how people complain the game is too easy and then also complain that only a handful of builds are viable.  These two seem to be mutually exclusive to me.

I find the game easy.  I find that many builds are viable.  All of the following are viable:

Swash Bard
Melee DPS Pally
Ranged Pally/Rogue
Mechanic Rogue
Assassin Rogue
TWF Ranger
Bow Ranger
X-Bow Arti
Druid Wolf
Druid DC Caster
FvS DC Caster
Cleric DC Caster
Warlock Melee with aura
Warlock Blaster
DC Caster Wizard/Sorc
Shiradi Spammer Wizard/Sorc
Barb
Fighter (with new tree, especially)
Monk

That's more than a handful.  It might be every class in the game.  I didn't even name FoTM builds.  Just basic stuff.  If you think there are only a handful of viable builds, I'm honestly not sure what game you are playing. 

Asheras wrote on Apr 16^th, 2016 at 11:02pm:

OK, maybe "viable" wasn't quite right, what I was trying to get at is a few core builds dominate with high overlap of feats and enhancements among variations on those builds. There is a large gap between the "Good" builds and the "Flavor" builds.

The game is easy enough that flavor builds are indeed viable, you can get through heroics on just about anything if you don't insist on playing elite at level. And in fact that's my preferred play style these days - I've got my repeater mechs and my tempest rangers, but enjoy my drow acrobat or my halfling artificer more.

Just to put it in perspective - a little role playing, You're running an EE raid, you're full enough to run when 2 more puggers hit your LFM. One a mech rogue, the other an artificer. Both are first lifers. When you do the mental calculus about how much they will contribute to the run compared to how much lag they will add, are you thinking of them both as viable, or are you wondering how much time the artificer will spend as a soul stone? I'm not asking if you'd take the arti, I suspect you would just to give him a chance, but would it be an act of charity or a clear advantage for your party? How do you think other raid leaders would respond in that situation, universal acceptance for the Arti?

And how do you think the Arti is likely to feel half way through the raid? Who plays a heroic fantasy game to be a charity case? Obviously he may be a fantastic player, but assuming both are "average" DDO puggers, Mech Rogue is clearly viable but is Artificer?

Meursault wrote on Apr 17^th, 2016 at 8:40am:

It's hard to blame DDO for this when the extreme separation between a good feat and a loser feat came right over from the D&D source.  I don't know if their license required them to make few changes to the game or if they were just lazy, but I'm willing to bet that the number of players who actually understand the game mechanics and take feats such as Diehard, almost any of the skill boosting feats (really Athletic?  +2 to balance and swim?), the utter crap skill and save blended feats, and most of the save feats, is very, very low.

They could make a pass at these and balance them enough to make them more attractive.  But they won't.