Server Travle times and cost

[kid]

I'm not sure if this was discussed before,
but I feel even if it was it might be worth bringing it up again.

I know alot of people seem to enjoy playing on more than one server which is fine.
thats what they are there for... however,

One thing that keeps bugging me is server hoping.
I know we have a 24 hour delay time but to me it just doesnt seem like enough.

People still can merryly play on MS and BG then MS again all in a four day time
that just seems odd to me and kinda ruins the immersion.

In my mind a 7 day cooling period and maybe a higher cost (I would like to see something around 100 coins) of travle would make people stick on one server for longer periods of time, making the whole thing feel a bit more real.

Thoughts?

[hollyfant]

Money is scarce for most PCs. Time is scarce for most players. We shouldn't deny people the chance to get some game on.
How about making it cost some XP instead?

[I-KP]

Intra-server travel times are somewhat nebulous too. The Underdark surface regions are as far away from the heart of MS as BG is, and Skaug isn't all that much nearer.

Easy server hopping tends to engender a nomadic playerbase, and that usually results in at least one server losing out on population by way of crowd dynamics. Recently (GMT) TSM has been the net gainer with MS being the net loser.

I would be in favour of some sort of mechanic to make server hopping less easy (less easy for all, not just for the low level / perma-skint types), but equally I wouldn't want to see something so proscriptive as to damage the possible range of the spirit of adventure and exploration.

[Brokenbone]

Distance a big abstraction, if you can walk a few screens in a few minutes, maybe if you look at an FR atlas, you'll realize BG to Beregost is 250 miles or ten days hard 8hrs/day march. AKA ten minutes in ALFA. Abstraction time! Same goes for sailing to this n' that city.

Don't let it ruin your fun.

Staying in place has its benefits too... personal plots, patronage of local DMs, ability to get long term NPC relationships (good and bad ones), etc. Talking about relationships / loyalty here, not tongue-in-cheek systems I've proposed like "here's your double XP token that vanishes if you end up on another server."

If there's some (increasingly mythical) group of server hoppers out there, DMs know that, choose who to spare attention for, etc.

[kid]

Well.... I would say the standard should be a long period
and if there is a good reason a DM can always clear it out pulling a player out of quarantine.

I say instead of making DMs try and track which players hop from server to server
why shouldn't we just make it impossible without a DM saying its ok?

[Veilan]

I say instead of making DMs try and track which players hop from server to server
why shouldn't we just make it impossible without a DM saying its ok?

This is a fair point.

In any case, travel time debates have two poles - on the one hand, we want people to be able to play together. On the other hand, we do not want to break everyone's immersion / have people do a "Friday Silverymoon for DM X' plot, sunday Moonshaes for DM Y's, wednesday BG for DM Z's plot!" rotation that would just cause reasonable grudge among the regulars of those servers and is frankly metagaming.

Castano and Curm agreed to a TSM-MS portal which is in the game, but not yet properly functioning, which addresses one side of that problem - my proposition for the other side was also to increase travel time layover. In short: Make it easy to jump once by guaranteeing every server is connected to each other - but then being forced to stay there for a while. This means you cannot rotate, yet if you gave a server an honest shot but found there's a new campaign starting on another server that you might just fit in - you can get there without having to travel half of Faerûn for days.

Of course, this really is a tightrope walk - I don't know which would be the best way to handle it.

Cheers,

[mr duncan]

In my mind a 7 day cooling period and maybe a higher cost (I would like to see something around 100 coins) of travle would make people stick on one server for longer periods of time, making the whole thing feel a bit more real.

Thoughts?

Very much against making the DM need to approve each server movement but this quote above is perfect. I would even say the cost in gold should be higher, twice that

We want people to be able to go from one server to another without OOC hassle, but I agree fully that it should not be so casual as to click over for a game and be back the next day

[Blindhamsterman]

cost in DMG is 1sp per killometer or thereabouts. how many killometers of sailing from RM to BG?

it'll be even more from BG to MS and an impressive amount from MS to Skaug at that

[Basilica]

I think that additional player restrictions should be backed with significant justification as to why they're needed especially when they have the potential to be a detraction to the "have fun" underlying purpose of ALFA.

Is there any supporting evidence that we have a real abuse problem here (and one that would not be better corrected by talking with abusing persons)? Across the entire active player base, ALFA averages something like 3 server portals per day. (That's something of about less than 4% of active players for reference.) I don't think this is evidence of significant server portal abuse.

[MaskedIllusion]

In my mind a 7 day cooling period and maybe a higher cost (I would like to see something around 100 coins) of travle would make people stick on one server for longer periods of time, making the whole thing feel a bit more real.

Thoughts?

Very much against making the DM need to approve each server movement but this quote above is perfect. I would even say the cost in gold should be higher, twice that

We want people to be able to go from one server to another without OOC hassle, but I agree fully that it should not be so casual as to click over for a game and be back the next day

While I do agree server hopping should be discouraged. I tend to disagree with both of these points. I do think the gold should be uped from the 10 (I believe) gold it is now. But making it 200 I think it s a bit much. People complain and dms admit chars are under wealth all the time, and while yes there are daily statics (at least in bg, can't really speak about other two servers daily's) where you can gain money, for the people who are more casual players, or for low level characters, this will just be a big pain. sometimes events (weather dmed or not) will take you to other servers, yes, but I think people will be unlikely to go if it is going to take up a third if not more of their money to get there and back again.

Also I think 7 days is a bit much. Again I am thinking of the more casual alfan, who when they get on, wants to play their game, not be stuck on another server for a full week just because they had to go to say TSM to buy gear, or BG for a one or two time event. While all their friends/relationships/plot lines are sitting idle for 7 days. I am not saying it should not be upped, just that 7 days its a bit much. maybe three or four?

[kid]

I think that additional player restrictions should be backed with significant justification as to why they're needed especially when they have the potential to be a detraction to the "have fun" underlying purpose of ALFA.

Is there any supporting evidence that we have a real abuse problem here (and one that would not be better corrected by talking with abusing persons)? Across the entire active player base, ALFA averages something like 3 server portals per day. (That's something of about less than 4% of active players for reference.) I don't think this is evidence of significant server portal abuse.

Why do we need to talk to players?
why do we need to keep tabs?
I cant see any RP reason that a player would be on TSM go to BG be there 1 day then back on TSM the next. it should just not happen.

now we have a lot of DMs around on all the servers.
if there is a special case... you can contact one and he could easyly clear you out of Q.

Having fun is not a good reason to server hop,
as it is not a good excause to farm, or exploit the game in any other way.

[Basilica]

Why do we need to talk to players?
why do we need to keep tabs?
I cant see any RP reason that a player would be on TSM go to BG be there 1 day then back on TSM the next. it should just not happen.

now we have a lot of DMs around on all the servers.
if there is a special case... you can contact one and he could easyly clear you out of Q.

Having fun is not a good reason to server hop,
as it is not a good excause to farm, or exploit the game in any other way.

The point is that this seems to be an anti-abuse measure that is in search of actual abuse to solve. (With collateral damage to the legitimate player base incurred along with.)

[kid]

The point is that this seems to be an anti-abuse measure that is in search of actual abuse to solve. (With collateral damage to the legitimate player base incurred along with.)

what is the collateral danage? better RP?
what reason could you have to be on TSM one day on BG
the next and then on TSM again? I can't find a legitimate reason for that.

if you have one please explain it to me.

[Basilica]

The point is that this seems to be an anti-abuse measure that is in search of actual abuse to solve. (With collateral damage to the legitimate player base incurred along with.)

what is the collateral danage? better RP?
what reason could you have to be on TSM one day on BG
the next and then on TSM again? I can't find a legitimate reason for that.

if you have one please explain it to me.

I would appreciate it if you would not insinuate that I am defining good RP as damaging.

The damage here is in the loss of flexibility for enjoying the game. For example, maybe your RP group is traveling along to another server two servers away but because of the proposed long delay, you get stuck alone because you were out sick for a day or two (or were busy and otherwise couldn't appear to initiate travel at the same time as everyone else). There are a number of other situations I've run into where it would have been simply OOCly not fun to have long restrictions on when players can move between servers.

From time to time, there is an OOC suspension of disbelief in ALFA in the name of speeding things along and making play more enjoyable. This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when it isn't being abused (the numbers do not suggest to me that there is real abuse going on here).

If specific players are egregriously abusing any part of ALFA, we have well established procedures for dealing with that. Let's try and follow those established procedures before enacting sweeping rules that affect everyone, in potentially unintended ways, if there is actual abuse going on here.

[NESchampion]

If specific players are egregriously abusing any part of ALFA, we have well established procedures for dealing with that. Let's try and follow those established procedures before enacting sweeping rules that affect everyone, in potentially unintended ways, if there is actual abuse going on here.

I'm inclined to agree with this, hard to put it any better. We have methods to handle metagaming/powergaming which is what repeated and rapid server hopping without justification could be considered if it's truly a problem.

I'm not a big fan of rapid server changing either, but I think we already have tools in place to handle such abuses should it be necessary to do so.