We’re currently planning to provide the following server configurations for Boundless:
Official Public Boundless Servers - These servers represent the main online Boundless universe and worlds. These worlds will be accessible to all players.
Official Private Boundless Servers - Players will also be able to buy and create their own world. These worlds will be accessed from the main game universe. Players can control who has access to their world.
Self Hosted Servers - In addition to the official servers, we also plan to release the Server for players and communities who want to host their own worlds and servers. Privately hosted worlds will not connect to the main game universe.
Note: All official Boundless servers will follow the same rules for resource distribution. Public and private worlds will all support world and resource regeneration. The resource distribution rules allow for a degree of fair customisation.
We aim to support Public and Private worlds when Boundless hits 1.0.
We also aim to release the Server when Boundless hits 1.0.
If we’re unable to release all 3 server configurations simultaneously, then our priority will be the Public Boundless servers. We will then release the Private and Self Hosted servers as quickly as possible afterwards.
Launch Update:
Public worlds will be available at launch.
Private worlds will not be available at launch. They will be added after launch.
Or the summed up response to that thread and discussion: “yes”. Hehehe. But in an honesty, good to see this information and to see that it’s being worked on for 1.0. Thanks for the update James!
First many many Thanks for the answer
you are the best @james
Not Connected to the Boundless Universe, was to be expected, but is a server list for the Self Hosted Server planned ?
as example the Serverlist from Steam. The Admin of the Self Hosted server can say in the config, if the server should be visible in this public server list or not.
Any ideas or informations how much they’ll cost ? eg is ist like a fee in other games (~5-15€ / month) or is it like a game server hosting for other games (~15-35€ / month). Are the settings determining the price ? eg. more players allowed = more expensive, more ressources = more expensive ?
I doubt you will be able to pay more for more resources as this will upset the balance of the game and give people with more money an unfair advantage.
Yeah that’s why i ask it. You can also rent a Battlefield server with 8 slots for 10€ but if you like a normal server with 64 slots you need to pay >30€ a month (values might be outdated … i played battlefield the last time 6 years ago).
there is also an other question not asked yet … if it’s possible to host private servers, and even if they have a ressource cap … will it be possible to transfere items from a private hosted server to a public server ? lets make an example: if a guild hosts a server with settings that are excelent for mining and farming and they generate a lot of ressources but block all other players from joining this server, will it be possible that they sell their items on the normal marked ? this will screw the economy as well because, even if there is a “balance” or cap for private server the guild would be without competitors. they know where the ressources are and they could work out a harves schedule while all other players have to fights agains each other about the limited resources … NOT FAIR.
EDIT: An other question about private servers … do you plan server administration / management ? you said i’d be able to manage who has access but if i don’t limit access, would i be able to kick / bann players from the server if they misbehave ?
I honestly don’t have a definitive answer for that.
I would imagine that they could transfer resources from their private server to the public universe, otherwise there is absolutely no real reason for them to rent a server!
You say that “all other players have to fights agains each other about the limited resources”, but we don’t actually know how many worlds there will be at 1.0 release. If there are enough worlds for people to spread out, this may not even be an issue at all.
I personally, would prefer to have a system on private servers where you can only whitelist players that can place beacons, not who can actually access the world. This would then resolve any issues with resource imbalances, as anyone would be able to mine from the world as normal (they just wouldn’t be able to settle there).
Again …
… I would take this as meaning that a world will not have ALL possible block types / resources, otherwise that would create a major imbalance. You would still need to buy / sell / trade for other resources that are not available on your rented world.
I’m only speculating here, but that is how I would envisage it working.
Although the paragraph about official private servers suggests that this might be possible I think that we´ll rather see something similar to what @Stretchious suggested:
As he already said, this would prevent any cases of imbalanced economy and still give the owner(s) of a rented world a major benefit.
With world regen I’m not quite seeing how having a private world hinders the economy. Any person or group that uses a private world will be tapping that world for resources instead of other worlds. And in both cases, the world regeneration will randomly distribute resources back into the area. There is no way to target certain areas with rich resources on either the public or private Boundless worlds. And in fact, by using a private world, resource competition (if that’s even a thing with world regen) will be lessened on public servers as a result of these people harvesting the resources from their private world.
I believe the customization that James mentioned refers to colors of rock and wood and whatnot. There shouldn’t be a way for them to create a world that has vast deposits of materials on their front door so hosting a server with settings that are excellent for mining and farming should be impossible.
As someone interested in private world hosting I can say I’d be fine with this only if I can direct any uninvited visitors to a direct spawn that could then be beaconed and protected with doors. If people can just come willy-nilly all over my world then there’s really no point in calling it “private”, so I’m doubting that’s the direction they take.
If the only way to access the private world is through a portal, there would be nothing to stop you beaconing the portal on the public servers and restricting access that way. Although I guess that would just be the same as having a general whitelist / blacklist on the server itself anyway.
I’m doubting there’s a way to find and travel to each and every portal placed by players and successfully beacon them all. Seems simpler to beacon the spawn…
Now if the only way to get to the world is via tokens or by providing Oortstone from the world to choice allies or whatever, then I’d also be fine with letting others pop wherever they want on the world (also whitelist methods). But I see no reason to allow anyone and everyone access to private worlds in the name of an equal economy until I see some solid proof that having a private server actually gives players a leg-up in the economy.
In addition to being a subscription free game B< is also made by a relatively small team.Allowing players to access (not settle) on ‘official private worlds’ could help to reduce the player density on the public worlds and prevent overcrowded worlds without any additional expenses (like investing into more hardware for public worlds).
Another (and imo even more important) reason to allow players to visit privately hosted worlds is the broad variety of possible worlds due to the already complex worldbuilder tool. I assume that the ratio between public official servers and private official servers will be at least 1:1. This would mean that you wouldn´t be able to see at least 50% of the B< universe, which would be quite a shame. (and let´s be honest, a lot of the community made worlds will look at least as good as the official dev worlds, if not even better)
There are a lot of other potential bonuses the devs could give for renting a world instead of having a whitelist. A giant permanent beacon that allows you/your guild to build structures that would be far to big to ever be protected on a public world would be one way to encourage groups of players to rent a world.
If the devs decide that a general whitelist on who can enter a rented world is something they want to do I hope that this will be an option that comes at the cost of an increased rent for the server (like it´s done for TS server if you want a custom host name for it) to keep the number of worlds with a whitelist low.
The ratio will be much higher. While there will be around 50 public worlds (that’s what they said about the “create your own world” bonus for high level backer) on release i’m sure the amount of private worlds will fast outgrow that number espacially if it’s possible to tranfere items. i expect it to be 1:20 (public:private) or even worse.
But promoting private worlds (which are rented) provides monthly funds that can be used to invest into more hardware for public worlds.
If you’re good at making friends, whitelisting gives you access to a few worlds hehe. All joking aside, can’t the people who want to see all of the different world varieties just make their own in world builder or rent their own server?
Seeing as a whitelist basically makes the entire world a giant beacon, this seems like a slap in the face to players renting private servers.[quote=“Vastar, post:13, topic:3892”]
If the devs decide that a general whitelist on who can enter a rented world is something they want to do I hope that this will be an option that comes at the cost of an increased rent for the server
[/quote]
This seems fine to me if they want to go this route. But then @james (or someone else on the team) needs to update the definition of an Official Private Boundless Server to no longer include the word Private (switch to exclusive or something?) and to update the definition to not say “players can control who has access to their world”. Note the definition doesn’t currently say “players can control who has access to beacons on their world” so this is extremely misleading if they go this route. Any update in this respect should be made ASAP as it takes away functionality while increasing price, which is not ideal for people who have been exposed to the pre-update information.
I’d also support a “solution” (in quotes because I still don’t quite understand where there’s a problem) where there is no whitelist but the world’s owner can impose a tax on resources. Like for every 10 of each resource you acquire on my world, I get 1 and you keep the other 9 (starting with the first resource, clearly, otherwise you’d get people who would take 9 and dip). Of course, in keeping with the soft whitelist ideas I’ve mentioned above, this tax should be configurable up to and including 100% taxation (I keep 10, you keep 0). That way people can still enjoy the landscapes I guess and owners are still getting benefit out of their exploration.
Not really, you would still have to use your precious beacons on all your structures to protect them from the world regeneration process.
They probably have not finalized their concept of world renting yet, so while this might be their current plan for world renting, they could change that concept (like they did with the tier system) until the first rented world goes online.
This might also be a viable solution. (although I think that you should not be able to make a 100% taxation)
As far as I remember, the whole tier controversy was that they had added an option that was exclusive and introduced gameplay benefits (however minor they may have been) that couldn’t be obtained by people who couldn’t pay. This is something else entirely in that it removes value AND ups the price instead of the solution there in which the value changed, stayed exclusive, and was added to lower tiers.[quote=“Vastar, post:16, topic:3892”]
This might also be a viable solution. (although I think that you should not be able to make a 100% taxation)
[/quote]
We’ll just have to agree to disagree here and wait to hear back from James or another dev on what the specifics are for Official Private servers.
As a reply to the questions and speculation on the thread, I think some of you are confusing the meaning of official private servers to the self hosted ones.
I’ll try to clarify this up, the official servers, public and private are hosted by Wonderstuck and both follow the same rules set by the developer team. The difference for the private official world is that you can design the world and manage the access policy for the other players from the public worlds to it. Official private and public servers are connected so the resource pools are shared between them.
Self hosted servers are the actual private servers, they are not connected to the official servers, public nor private and the hosting person can manage the whole rule set for the game. You can’t use these servers to carry resources over to the official servers.
No confusion from me ^^ as far as I was concerned we were talking about resource transfer and management of official private servers … not self hosted ones!
