One/Two Servers To Rule Them All

[I-KP]

Two servers to rule them all (preferably two geographically co-located ones so as not to worry the metagods of travel distance, which for most self-respecting RPers is a consideration). Demote all of the other servers to 'DM campaign only' status which are only accessible via DM plottage, i.e., they're otherwise off the radar as far as general non-DM'd wandering is concerned. (And between DM sessions all players are returned to one of the two common hub servers. We're all used to comic book time now and leaving players in isolated locations between sessions never works well for anyone concerned.) This creates no change in the amount of jam that we have (which I suspect will never improve significantly, not anymore) but we'll have less freely available toast to spread it around on which will result in a higher player density. If our jammy contingent is given the choice to wander to all four corners of all available slabs of toast they will, as happens now, which inevitably results in disparate and nomadic groups of players that rarely interact. That's not a clever arrangement for an RP world with such low levels of activity, and although I've not played in either of the other games that are apparently still doing well I'd not be at all surprised if they each have one central hub and don't allow their players to spread themselves so far apart that they effectively become hermits.

1. Limit players to one/two geographically co-located servers.
2. Allow travel to the wider regions within ALFA (the other servers) via DM'd events only.
3. ???
4. Profit.

[Ithildur]

Except 1: Dalelands. Cloud has brought that server up 1000 times.... There are not constant accusations of farming, metagaming, appeals over DMs etc.

No one accuses of farming if everyone farms and it's the default modus operandi. I tried it, couldn't get most people to stand still long enough to RP any significant amount; many were simply too focused on running from one static to the next one.

Maybe when they get to high levels they slow down and RP more, donno.

[Ithildur]

Two servers to rule them all (preferably two geographically co-located ones so as not to worry the metagods of travel distance, which for most self-respecting RPers is a consideration). Demote all of the other servers to 'DM campaign only' status which are only accessible via DM plottage, i.e., they're otherwise off the radar as far as general non-DM'd wandering is concerned. (And between DM sessions all players are returned to one of the two common hub servers. We're all used to comic book time now and leaving players in isolated locations between sessions never works well for anyone concerned.) This creates no change in the amount of jam that we have (which I suspect will never improve significantly, not anymore) but we'll have less freely available toast to spread it around on which will result in a higher player density. If our jammy contingent is given the choice to wander to all four corners of all available slabs of toast they will, as happens now, which inevitably results in disparate and nomadic groups of players that rarely interact. That's not a clever arrangement for an RP world with such low levels of activity, and although I've not played in either of the other games that are apparently still doing well I'd not be at all surprised if they each have one central hub and don't allow their players to spread themselves so far apart that they effectively become hermits.

1. Limit players to one/two geographically co-located servers.
2. Allow travel to the wider regions within ALFA (the other servers) via DM'd events only.
3. ???
4. Profit.

This actually sounds like a feasible alternative method to offer 'All or most of the Realms' in a way that might help with player density. It is however conceding that most of the Realms are not persistently available regions for players to choose to visit at will. We'd definitely be moving even further away from the 'PW model' to 'campaign model' (note: my view of ALFA has always been that it's really a hybrid, not a true PW).

Perhaps that's not a bad thing really, especially when you consider the practical reality that servers like TSM, 90% of the players will never see 90% of the content that's in the module without being in a DM event anyway...

For this to work however, it puts even more of an emphasis on DMs being around and actually doing stuff that might involve travel to other regions; otherwise 'hey we feature the ability to travel to all these different parts of Faerun' is an empty meaningless promise.

I'm also thinking this could make 'world tour'/trans-server type of events more manageable, perhaps even a regular thing.

[I-KP]

If one accepts that the days of having 60+ players logged in are long gone (which is about the number of active players ALFA would need to see decent levels of activity spread across four or five servers) then consolidation, by whatever method, is the only sensible answer to improving player density. The cold, hard fact of the matter is that ALFA hasn't been strong enough to support its mission statement for a long time, i.e., having multiple persistently available regions of the world, and in my opinion AFLA's goals need to be rationalised.

Some scrutinize games like Dalelands and BG:TSCC in an attempt to divine why they are still successful when to me part of the answer is staring them right in the face: they have a central hub around which everything revolves. Consolidation is not a cure-all but it should be an important part of a range of measures, including multiple PCs for example. No one measure is going to turn ALFA around.

[CloudDancing]

I have to agree.

What attracts new players to a world is:

1. Disgruntlement with the previous world they played on or getting banned for breaking the rules OR ideally sick of the low standards of roleplaying and D&D rules applications elsewhere. It really is why the most disgruntled of "us" members keep coming back. Boundaries make people feel safe.

2. A high population (such as let's blow the applet counter apart and have it list TOTAL players and what areas they are in on mouse over)

3. An active website/forums with a clear description of permadeath guidelines and rp expectations in HUGE letters and that on the server loading screen (which is a moot point ftm unless Skywing's new thingie will show that info like Gamespy did)

4. An OPEN server with no application but a very vigilant, neutral, and timely application of no cheating rules by the administration. Our application process is a major turn-off. Nobody wants to date a girl with impossibly high (and sometimes arbitrary) standards. And not very many gaming nerds/geeks/whatevers want to face possible rejection either.

[Swift]

You can cut as many servers as you want, but PCs are still not going to associate with each other if there are good IC reasons not to. For example, TSM is generally home to more good aligned people while less good people find BG more to their liking. If we suddenly merged or cut one server into 'campaign only' mode, having both groups of players on the same server would not increase how much people play together because of philosophical differences between each group of PCs.

As Ronan said, cutting servers is not really going to solve anything.

[puny]

4. An OPEN server with no application but a very vigilant, neutral, and timely application of no cheating rules by the administration. Our application process is a major turn-off. Nobody wants to date a girl with impossibly high (and sometimes arbitrary) standards. And not very many gaming nerds/geeks/whatevers want to face possible rejection either.

also, i'm fairly sure people eithjer doesnt apply because its a bore, takes time and people searching for somewhere to play wants to play instantly, or atleast be able to download the mods and be able to play those 10 hours after that's done... or that people actually applies, then forgets to check back when they get accepted, probably found somewhere else to find their jollies while waiting...

[I-KP]

You can cut as many servers as you want, but PCs are still not going to associate with each other if there are good IC reasons not to. For example, TSM is generally home to more good aligned people while less good people find BG more to their liking. If we suddenly merged or cut one server into 'campaign only' mode, having both groups of players on the same server would not increase how much people play together because of philosophical differences between each group of PCs.
As Ronan said, cutting servers is not really going to solve anything.

If the game you're after is a fluffy one where the carebears roam freely with ner a harsh word spoken between them, then yes, cutting the number of servers won't solve anything; however, if a game world kept alive by tension, a game world ever churning on its conflict-fuelled guts, a game world where persons so minded band together to fend off disagreeable intent is what you're after then cutting the number of places to hide away in and to some degree force a little interaction here and there will help. You speak as if you prefer an ALFA that is, in effect, PvE; where all like-minded players dwell on one server whilst the opposition linger on another, with both parties doomed to sit in darkened rooms pouring over plots that never see the light of day. Frankly, how f_cking boring is that. Actually, I can tell you exactly how boring that is: that's the ALFA of today and in case you were caught napping, it's not working.

High player concentrations are smelting pots for sub-plots and intrigue like no other. Improving player density is not an answer in and of itself, but it is an unavoidable part of the solution.

[Adanu]

You can cut as many servers as you want, but PCs are still not going to associate with each other if there are good IC reasons not to. For example, TSM is generally home to more good aligned people while less good people find BG more to their liking. If we suddenly merged or cut one server into 'campaign only' mode, having both groups of players on the same server would not increase how much people play together because of philosophical differences between each group of PCs.
As Ronan said, cutting servers is not really going to solve anything.

If the game you're after is a fluffy one where the carebears roam freely with ner a harsh word spoken between them, then yes, cutting the number of servers won't solve anything; however, if a game world kept alive by tension, a game world ever churning on its conflict-fuelled guts, a game world where persons so minded band together to fend off disagreeable intent is what you're after then cutting the number of places to hide away in and to some degree force a little interaction here and there will help. You speak as if you prefer an ALFA that is, in effect, PvE; where all like-minded players dwell on one server whilst the opposition linger on another, with both parties doomed to sit in darkened rooms pouring over plots that never see the light of day. Frankly, how f_cking boring is that. Actually, I can tell you exactly how boring that is: that's the ALFA of today and in case you were caught napping, it's not working.

High player concentrations are smelting pots for sub-plots and intrigue like no other. Improving player density is not an answer in and of itself, but it is an unavoidable part of the solution.

While a valid point, some just don't like PvP, and treat PvP as ruining others' fun.

[I-KP]

While a valid point, some just don't like PvP, and treat PvP as ruining others' fun.

PvP doesn't have to equal the end of someone's character. Every hero needs a rival and if that rival is another player then of such things fine stories are made.

[Castano]

While a valid point, some just don't like PvP, and treat PvP as ruining others' fun.

PvP doesn't have to equal the end of someone's character. Every hero needs a rival and if that rival is another player then of such things fine stories are made.

until people file complaints....I hate PvP because of the complaints, the meta etc.

[Swift]

So we cut down to two hub servers. What do the players who have no interest in those servers do? And yes, we have many players who play on one or two servers because they either don't like the other servers themselves, don't like the players or don't like the DMs.

What is an acceptable cost for doing such a thing? 5 players lost? 10?

Multiple PCs has been touted as a possible solution and has gained traction. How about we see how that plays out before discussing ideas like cutting servers and forcing people to play where they may not want to play?

[oldgrayrogue]

I started logging in to a LoTR server I used to play on that just got back up and running. The PW is VAST. There are spawns everywhere, literally hundreds of quests and virtually no lag. And there are many open wilderness areas with trees and water and woods you can explore without the need for travel maps or clipped "road areas." The Dalelands server is similar. Not sure why we have so much lag and issues with size as compared to other PWs I have played on.

I will again state that grinding levels is the norm on these servers. There is RP and DM coverage but not nearly to the standards of ALFA. As Ithildur stated, most players basically grind their way to uberness and then start RPing once they are all powerful. Not all but most.

[Heero]

I started logging in to a LoTR server I used to play on that just got back up and running. The PW is VAST. There are spawns everywhere, literally hundreds of quests and virtually no lag. And there are many open wilderness areas with trees and water and woods you can explore without the need for travel maps or clipped "road areas." The Dalelands server is similar. Not sure why we have so much lag and issues with size as compared to other PWs I have played on.

There is absolutely no reason we cant do this. We just need motivated builders to build areas and scripters to scripts quests.

Let me ask you this: how many player hubs do they have on this LoTR or Dalelands server, and how many in-game areas would you say comprise each of these hubs on average? Im just curious.

I maintain too many resources have been spent over the years building inns, towns, shops, temples, forts, and every other sort of habituated, 'safe' area with not enough effort placed upon the sort of areas that are used for adventure.

[Ithildur]

It's a tradeoff, a tricky balancing act.

One of the distictives of ALFA and a feature many love is the attention to details, the aim of dotting every i and crossing every t as much as possible with canon NPCs, locations, monsters, dungeons, etc. The net result when it works well is it really does feel like 'I've always wanted to walk the Forgotten Realms, and now I can' like the reviewer in the NWVault article linked on our front page said.

However, if it's truly an issue of cost/resources, then I have to agree that you don't have to have every single indoor area described in a sourcebook in the mod;. In fact none of our current mods feature that; our BG and Silverymoon do not have everything mentioned in the sourcebooks. Due to the nature of the NWN2 game engine and toolset, the goal of trying to do this is much less cost effective than it was in NWN1; at some point you have to pick the places that are really essential to be in, and leave some stuff out. If it comes down to a choice between building the 15th inn in Waterdeep that's never ever going to be used for anything vs spending the resources in an area that's likely to provide content people interact with, you have to let something go.

The trick has always been correctly assessing what the truly essential elements are that help give a sense of 'I do feel like I'm really walking around in FR' and highlighting those. That inn #15? Probably isn't one of them (though all the inns in BG currently are quite familiar names to many CRPGers, I do hope those stay in).