Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Изменено «пиратский сервер» → «частный сервер» #13

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Simplaf234-ghost
Copy link
Contributor

Calling them "pirate's servers" is common in Russian, but "private" actually means "частный".

Calling them "pirate's servers" is common in Russian, but "private" actually means "частный".
@FrancescoBorzi
Copy link
Owner

@Viste @Winfidonarleyan can you please review ?

@Viste
Copy link

Viste commented Aug 31, 2020

@FrancescoBorzi i think better use familiar name then same as in eng variant :) no one use private server in russian all use pirate

@Simplaf234-ghost
Copy link
Contributor Author

Simplaf234-ghost commented Sep 1, 2020

I don’t think it is correct to call them "pirate's servers" even if everyone calls them so. Use "unofficial servers" (неофициальные серверы) then. Readers will understand it.

This word is disliked by GNU.

I also think this name is incorrect because of differences between piracy (copyright infringement) and current private servers. Here are reasons for this and they are also reasons why I hate all of WoW private servers and why I quit WoW permanently (most likely these issues will never be fixed and I don’t want to play alone on my local server):

tl;dr IIUC, pirate server is about playing the game as‐is without paying for it, but IRL private servers are about playing custom WoW‐based game on fixed patch.

IIUC, pirate server means it’s used to play game as‐is for free if it is meant to be paid for. In case of WoW, it must be as blizzlike as possible (the only exception is it must be free‐to‐play). By blizzlike I also mean:

  • blizzlike progression (from 1.1.0 to last WoW patch which number we don’t know yet with correct delays between patches)
  • blizzlike realms (all locales, not just few any‐locale realms)
  • blizzlike ToS and GM behavior
  • blizzlike environment (in 3.3 they implemented cross‐game RealID and Battle.net account support so pirate server developers should work together on this)
  • etc.

Of course such server will be immediately shut down by Blizzard Entertainment, but WoW is using TCP and we can use Tor for it. Even if one such server is shut down with its staff arrested, another one will appear, like there were Silk Road, then Silk Road 2, then third one.

IRL, most likely no such server exists.
Private servers have serious differences from retail ones:

  • Almost all private servers are stuck on latest patch of some expansion. Some of them use non‐blizzlike static client patch progression or live progression in case latest expansion patch is not yet released by Blizzard Entertainment. And when progression ends, they start implementing non‐blizzlike stuff instead of progressing to next major patch. Some servers which don’t are sometimes called "blizzlike" but they aren’t due to lack of blizzlike major patch progression.
  • Some servers are intentionally non‐blizzlike (like increased rates or imbalanced donation items).
  • Most private servers have single or few any‐locale realms (because there are way less players than on retail).
  • They have their own ToS and GM hiring requirements.

And even emulator developers refused to implement Battle.net accounts/RealID because it depends on some public‐key cryptographic system where private key is not known (in case of true pirate server they would patch the client and implement it using their own key).

@FrancescoBorzi
Copy link
Owner

I'm really not sure what to do with this as I don't understand Russian. Any third opinion?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants