The Second Big Player Density Poll

[Joos]

Density doesnt come with fewer larger servers. Desnity comes with active DM's. Voted C.

[MShady]

Any discussion with Idoru involved on what way to go with NWN2 and density, etc, makes me a bit suspicious with his prior comments. Things like, "So I would support giving all current HDMs a guarantee that they can have their server regions, and build beta mods for them. Plus adding a few new faces. Of course, once we've added our initial bunch of servers, and it becomes clear to the beta hdms that they are not likely to get a live date anytime soon.. " Polls aside, I think his real position is pretty clear on the matter.

Mike

[Khazar Stoneblood]

I like playing in ALFA. I don't know why the rest of you are here, but I'm here because I enjoy it. I voted C, because despite all the negative comments, I think ALFA 1 worked. I'm here, you all are here... ALFA is good.

Everyone says it's broke... but I still have a good time, and I think by following option A we very well may screw it up horribly.

[Inaubryn]

Density doesnt come with fewer larger servers. Desnity comes with active DM's. Voted C.

+1

[Overfilled Cup]

People refer to building a sculpture of fauren as our server base as a bad thing.

I think differently. As builders I think that is exactly what the goal is. To build it in its entirety. What and how we choose to play on that "sculpture" is up to us.

OC

[Mayhem]

I think differently. As builders I think that is exactly what the goal is. To build it in its entirety. What and how we choose to play on that "sculpture" is up to us.

OC

Then why open it up to players at all? If a big empty model of Faerun has an intrinsic value in its own right, you don't need players, DMs, or scripts, or anything for players to interact with, and it could have been finished months ago.

I don't think that is what ALFA is about, though.

***

I am also surprised at the number of people who think our player base is shallow enough that they will base their choice of PW purely on number of servers. Surely, for the folk we are trying to recruit, quality of RP is the greater factor?

[TheCrazyGoblin]

I am also surprised at the number of people who have different opinions to mine!

[NickD]

Density doesnt come with fewer larger servers. Desnity comes with active DM's. Voted C.

+1

If density comes with active DMs and it's something we enforce, then ALFA will expand rapidly anyway under the low starting server solution and we won't have a problem.

How many live servers has ALFA had in it's ... 4(?) years since it started to get built? I can only think of 19, so maybe 21-23? Wynna's proposal has it at 10 in 11 months if the density requirements are met. Some ALFA servers have been in Beta 3 for 11 months!

[Audark]

I just don't see why servers need to meet density numbers if that's not what they're all about. I see TSM mostly empty now, as everyone knows it is between campaign times, but it is a beautiful server and a gem in ALFA, serving a direct purpose and being raved about by players, especially those in Wynna's university campaign. I do not think it is important for every server to have a high number of players, for example some DMs have said they would go mad DMing the amount of people Rick has been doing on Daggerford lately. Density may be the answer for some servers and DMs, but I see no more value in a fully populated server 24/7, then I do another live server that is often empty save for DM plots and campaigns. All add to the size and scope of ALFA, all help recreate faerun, and all serve their players very well, because even within the category of RP intensive servers there are still many styles to absorb.


If a server is built well, integrates well, has the static content AND DMs to bring it to life, it will thrive in accordance with the designs of its DMs. Any talk of mandating DM times to meet certain limits or ratios bothers me, those that want to DM at any given moment, will. It's a freaking game, and we're all in it for fun. If some servers are empty because the DMs on it have gotten caught up in Real Life, that happens, but no longer having that server, with all its locales and content to explore, would be a shame.

[Wild Wombat]

Like Kat has said very convincingly, it isn't player density that matters, it is DM density.

If a player wants to be DMed, then DM density is a very important factor. Lots of active DMs mean a better chance of logging on and finding a DM. Few active DMs mean a worse chance.

However, even though there may be a low density of DMs on Silvy, the regular players there have a pretty good chance of finding a DM when they log on. This is because Silvy has always operated by a different forumla. The DMs provide a fairly rigid schedule of campaigns so that the players know what to expect. If they log on when there is no campaign, they know that their odds of being DMed are low. However, if they log in for a campaign that they are signed up for, then they know that their odds of being DMed are extremely high.

Perhaps we need to have a few core servers that have a high density of DMs that can provide something approaching the ideal of 24/7 coverage. Maybe it is not necessary for all servers to do that, as long as the players know which is which, and when to expect DMs.

For me it is all about communication. Give the players a way to find out what they can expect on a server.

[Murky Majare]

Without going into the consequences of the different options in this vote, will we get a true result?

I think we will not.

[NickD]

If we go with option A we will be able to see if it works. If it doesn't we can always change over to option C. The reverse would be significantly more difficult.

[Mayhem]

Density doesnt come with fewer larger servers. Desnity comes with active DM's. Voted C.

+1

If density comes with active DMs and it's something we enforce, then ALFA will expand rapidly anyway under the low starting server solution and we won't have a problem.

Assuming a steadily increasing supply of DMs, that is. If the number of servers increases faster than the number of DMs required to maintain the "optimum" number of X Dms per server, then things will rapidly grind to a halt.

[Wild Wombat]

If the number of servers increases faster than the number of DMs required to maintain the "optimum" number of X Dms per server, then things will rapidly grind to a halt.

I think that the point held by some is that that is not a bad thing. I think saying "things will rapidly grind to a halt" puts a negative spin on it. Why not say that we will have reached a point where server growth needs to slow or stop while we concentrate on expanding the pool of DMs so that we can support more growth?

[NickD]

Density doesnt come with fewer larger servers. Desnity comes with active DM's. Voted C.

+1

If density comes with active DMs and it's something we enforce, then ALFA will expand rapidly anyway under the low starting server solution and we won't have a problem.

Assuming a steadily increasing supply of DMs, that is. If the number of servers increases faster than the number of DMs required to maintain the "optimum" number of X Dms per server, then things will rapidly grind to a halt.

I'm failing to see how that would be an issue in this case. If a situation where we run out of DMs occurs and if the idea that only DMs create density is correct, the rapid expansion of servers should be slowed under both option A and the proposal that servers require a level of DMing to go (and stay) live.