A persistent problem

This is a general open discussion for all ALFA, Neverwinter Nights, and Dungeons & Dragons topics.

Moderator: ALFA Administrators

User avatar
Heero
Beholder
Posts: 1930
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:52 pm

Re: A persistent problem

Post by Heero »

Xanthea wrote:Yeah, uh, nobody on ALFA is actually a gamist.

There are only narrativists and simulationists who derive differing amounts of enjoyment from adventure RP as opposed to town RP.
Truth here.
Heero just pawn in game of life.

12.August.2013: Never forget.
15.December.2014: Never forget.

The Glorious 12.August.2015: Always Remember the Glorious 12th.
User avatar
Duck One
Orc Champion
Posts: 423
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:51 am
Location: Indiana (EST)
Contact:

Re: A persistent problem

Post by Duck One »

So now we have to be the best parts of Pen and Paper, World of Warcraft, and Star Wars Galaxies to be persistent-- and because we fail to live up to this standard, all is lost?
Just because ALFA is meant to be different SWG, DDO, WOW, etc., doesn’t mean we can’t look to them to understand their game dynamics and how it compares to ALFA, perhaps learning something about ourselves. When a group isolates itself and looks only to itself to understand itself, it becomes an echo chamber that can not easily innovate or evolve; a stagnant and heavily entrenched group that can’t see or understand its shortcomings and largely change resistant. I’m sure that’s not how you want to see ALFA, but by avoiding comparisons to any other offering it is what is risked.
It sounds like you're driving toward a dramatic overhaul to turn ALFA into campaign servers-- so, please, just put up a module for a few hours a week and run your campaign on it.
Again you presume my motives. Perhaps it may be helpful for you to not focus so much upon the messenger and instead deal with the contents of the message.

I have made my motives quite plain, and I will reiterate them as clearly as I can:

I want to play. My recreational time is important to me, and I want to use it wisely.
I want ALFA to succeed. It was a grand vision, and I spent thousands of hours trying to support it.

But what I want doesn’t necessarily make it true. ALFA has not been able to realize its grand vision. However it continues to operate as though it has or can still, with all the assumptions that go with it, and the policies that follow from those assumptions.

Most of what I have done in these threads is point out to the community that which may not be obvious to those who have been here so long; to hold up a mirror to it and ask it to honestly see itself as others may see it.
Duck One

Some guy who used to do some work 'round here.
Zelknolf
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 6139
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:04 pm

Re: A persistent problem

Post by Zelknolf »

There's a lot of severe and unrealistic dichotomies presented here; there is a difference between rejecting your definition of persistency and refusing to improve or evaluate ourselves.

Work on ALFA is constant; anyone involved sees that. Anyone not involved can also see that; it's literally as easy as plucking a quote off of Wikipedia. The world changes by the actions of players routinely, and low-level changes keep making it easier to do that. ALFA is available for use as close to 24/7 as our budget will allow-- we can't afford the battery of commercial services, but it's not like downtime is sustained; major upgrades bring the world down for half an hour. ALFA shares its narrative among all its involved players, and their characters routinely participate in multiple stories, and are usually influenced by many more. That fits normal definitions of a persistent world. Frankly, it fits them better than most (typically, players aren't allowed to change persistent worlds).


You don't-- can't-- hold up a mirror. No one can. It's a nice self image to hold up, because that would make you some sort of wise man speaking from on high about these poor blind misguided people, but the reality is that you're also limited by your perception, biases, and capacity to express. Everyone has that same limitation. There are no mirrors in this discussion; there are only drawings. Flawed, incomplete drawings, no two of which look the same.
shad0wfax
DM Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:57 am

Re: A persistent problem

Post by shad0wfax »

Duck One wrote:Many of these policies are actively preventing players and DM’s from coming together.
Name one policy in ALFA Pillars, Charter, Rules, Standards, or unofficial server HDM/DM policy that prevents players and DMs from interacting, interfacing, collaborating, or in any other way coming together.
User avatar
Duck One
Orc Champion
Posts: 423
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:51 am
Location: Indiana (EST)
Contact:

Re: A persistent problem

Post by Duck One »

shad0wfax wrote:Name one policy in ALFA Pillars, Charter, Rules, Standards, or unofficial server HDM/DM policy that prevents players and DMs from interacting, interfacing, collaborating, or in any other way coming together.
The limitation on the number of PC's. By restricting my selection to one PC on any given server, I am limited to one choice of level, race, alignment. If I am wandering around with my level 2 LG dwarven paladin, and someone else arrives with his level 13 CE half orc assassin, there are a number of reasons these two PC's might not be able to team up. The paladin, using his sense alignment ability, would know right away he's dealing with an evil character, and things would go poorly from there. The racial biases of the dwarf would further complicate matters. But even if the they were to somehow find a way to ignore the obvious character motivation issues and manage to not only avoid fighting one another, but in some hyper-twisted stretch of character motivations figure out a reason to team up, there is the practical concern of the levels. The higher level PC would likely have done all the material that the lower PC would consider doing, and even if he chose to join, would take away experience and the thrill of any challenge. The lower PC would be out of his league attempting to do anything that might pose even a minor risk to the higher PC, making doing such material unwise at best. There is no logical or practical reason why these two would team up given their available character. However if each had other PC's to choose from, a pairing of workable level/alignment/race might be found, and the two would be able to group.

The time and risk of travel. {Insisting that PC's walk everywhere; making long roads that give ALFA its vast feel; putting random spawns on the roadways} - by making travel time consuming and risky, the players avoid travel. This happened Saturday morning when two different PC's logged into TSM looking to join a group of 4 trying new content, discovered how remote and dangerous it would be to reach the group and knowing a return trip was required after completion, each logged off concluding it was either there wasn't enough time or it was simply too risky to try to join when traveling alone. Last night I sent a tell to a player inviting him to come up to BG and meet a new PC, and he declined saying he was going to log off in 15 minutes, and there wasn't enough time to make the trip, and didn't want to be on that end of the server when he logged in the next time. When your time is limited and the risk of a random encounter traveling alone at night is considerable, these become factors as to whether or not to join a group.

The 30 day rule another rule limiting the options and travel of PC's to reach one another. I might be willing to bring my level 1 rogue over from TSM to help out some lower characters once my bard gets too high, or vice versa bring my Bard over to TSM to join in some higher players, but this rule is preventing both options, thereby limiting my ability to more readily line up with other player's characters.

No playing where you DM rule this one cuts two ways, because it may be preventing players from taking up the DM wand at the same time preventing DM's from joining campaigns with PC's. I would pick up a DM wand tomorrow and set up a weekly campaign on TSM if I didn't have to lose access to being DM'd by Wynna and Heegz and Ith, or the ability of my PC to try Wynna's great Lady's College scripted content (which I still hope to one day try). I wonder if this is the reason Mick turned in his wand, so he can let Arizma travel. Like all the examples above, the less options you have in choices of characters / DM's, the less likely a grouping will occur.

Passworded servers by limiting who can get in, your limiting the player base, and limiting the chance that group might happen at any random point in time.

You've asked for 1, and I've given 5. If I really put some thought into it, I might come up with more. I know there are other considerations in these rules, and they weren't specifically put in place to try to prevent player and DM groupings, but it is a side effect of those rules. In some cases, the effect is very significant. ALFA was built with the premise that the community would have so many players and DM's that such rules would would only have a trivial impact on players and DM's abilities to group. However ALFA's current much smaller player base has made that assumption no longer true.
Duck One

Some guy who used to do some work 'round here.
FoamBats4All
Githyanki
Posts: 1289
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:00 pm

Re: A persistent problem

Post by FoamBats4All »

Duck One wrote:The limitation on the number of PC's.
We used to allow 1 PC. We now allow 2 PCs. This has shown itself to provide little benefit, if any. Certainly it has not created an influx of play time.
Duck One wrote:The time and risk of travel.
Very little travel on servers is risky. TSM is probably the most dangerous, though BG should be a bit harder. They're rugged harsh wildernesses. What do you expect? If you want safe, book a carriage or boat ride. But in general if you stay on the road you should have no problems.
Duck One wrote:The 30 day rule
It's always "once my" or "if my" or something like that, isn't it? Anyway the 30 day rule most HDMs let you bypass if there's no concern. When stepping down as a DM or moving around characters I always just ask the HDM and they so "go ahead". I doubt this is a real issue, and if it is, it's not an actual issue in practice -- unless there's legitimate concern for metagaming.
Duck One wrote:No playing where you DM rule
If we got rid of this, so many people would quit ALFA, myself included. Every time we allow someone to temporarily DM where they play, they immediately do shady ass shit with the power.
Duck One wrote:Passworded servers
BG and MS are open. Do you see MS swarmed with players because of this? No.
Duck One wrote:You've asked for 1, and I've given 5. If I really put some thought into it, I might come up with more.
Please do. We've tried or addressed every single one of the ones above, and they've either not been actual problems or would damage the community to attempt further.
User avatar
Duck One
Orc Champion
Posts: 423
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:51 am
Location: Indiana (EST)
Contact:

Re: A persistent problem

Post by Duck One »

We used to allow 1 PC. We now allow 2 PCs. This has shown itself to provide little benefit, if any. Certainly it has not created an influx of play time.
It did for me personally on Saturday. I wouldn’t have been able to group up with the group Saturday morning on TSM and later that night with a different group on BG. Without the two different PC’s, one of those doesn’t happen. Location/Level/Race/Alignment are all barriers to grouping. More PC’s increases the choices of Location/Level/Race/Alignment, thereby reducing the potential barrier.

I was asked to respond to a question concerning issues of grouping. Your remark speaks to volume of play. Two different things. However since you’ve brought it up and obviously done the analysis concerning volume of play, do you have data that relates policy decisions as it pertains player satisfaction and long term retention rates? I’d love to see it.
FoamBats4All wrote: It's always "once my" or "if my" or something like that, isn't it? Anyway the 30 day rule most HDMs let you bypass if there's no concern. When stepping down as a DM or moving around characters I always just ask the HDM and they so "go ahead". I doubt this is a real issue, and if it is, it's not an actual issue in practice -- unless there's legitimate concern for metagaming.
I use myself as an example because it’s experience I can draw upon without directly calling out another player. Please don’t be condescending. Regarding your response, what if the HDM is not around? What if he says, “no”. There is a policy, and it does limit players from grouping.
FoamBats4All wrote: Very little travel on servers is risky. TSM is probably the most dangerous, though BG should be a bit harder. They're rugged harsh wildernesses. What do you expect? If you want safe, book a carriage or boat ride. But in general if you stay on the road you should have no problems.
There isn’t a carriage or boat going to every place on the servers. To whatever degree it is risky, it is a barrier. You say it’s minor, but it’s come up for me twice in the past week.
FoamBats4All wrote: If we got rid of this, so many people would quit ALFA, myself included. Every time we allow someone to temporarily DM where they play, they immediately do shady ass shit with the power.
Again, the question asked was if there are policies preventing groupings, and this is one. You may think that the policy has merit and the side effect to grouping has to be absorbed, and you’re entitled to conclusion. But the fact remains is that it does have an effect on grouping.
FoamBats4All wrote:BG and MS are open. Do you see MS swarmed with players because of this? No.
Your remark speaks to the overall attractiveness of ALFA and the relative attractiveness of one server over another within ALFA, an avenue I don’t wish to explore. But once again the question I was responding to was one of policies that limit the ability to group, and this is one. You may conclude that limitation is small, and you may be right. By the same token, if it prevents even 1 player from joining a group, at this point wouldn’t you consider it worthy of consideration?
FoamBats4All wrote:Please do. We've tried or addressed every single one of the ones above, and they've either not been actual problems or would damage the community to attempt further.
You may think that these policies outweigh the side effect to grouping, and you’re certainly entitled to hold that opinion, but to deny that there is no effect would be disingenuous at best. I notice you did not respond to one of the larger barriers: travel times. Taken separately, each one may seem small, but taken as a group and given the current population density of ALFA, the effect of these are likely more significant than you’re willing to give credit.
Duck One

Some guy who used to do some work 'round here.
User avatar
causk
Brown Bear
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:53 pm

Re: A persistent problem

Post by causk »

Two PC policy:
It was mentioned again that the policy has had no positive impact on player number/time played. Anecdotal evidence warning: at least for me it has extended my playtime and interest in alfa considerably.
The rare and luxury problem is having a pc stuck in a dmed campaign thats in dangerous terrain, thus not allowing play outside the scheduled timeslot (was an issue for me at least three times).
Many people are reluctant to travel all over faerun(or between the servers) just to join in on a gathering of players/dmed interaction. I enjoy the variety of having different pcs to rp with aswell, besides the obvious advantage of having pcs that fit into more and different groups of characters/campaigns. With the cvc changed and the cooldown period i dont see what opportunity it gives for abuse. If the observed statistics dont show any of this benefit, i would suggest it may have simply compensated downward trend in general. Without a controll group/alfa youll never be able to tell with confidence. So hurrah for two pc change!

Risk Travel:
TSM seems risky, BG seems time intensive travel. Dont really think theres anything wrong with it. I dont feel sub 15 minutes of rp interaction is the format alfa is very good at anyways. So i would group the issue of people not interacting because travel distance is too great with other time management issues. Sure maybe a teleport to nearest player in neutral area wand might help some time or other, but i think alot more would be lost with it.

Playing where you DM:
I wouldnt be comfortable with that either. The potential benefit is so small it seems silly to risk anything over.

Overall:
I didnt expect Alfa to last until now and i only(!) joined five years ago. I think whats been done so far is a huge accomplishment, servers and tech is better than it ever was. What would make it better is obviously more players and more playtime. I just dont think theres a realistic chance even with optimal policy and effort to get back to full servers. NWN2 is not very popular, perma death isnt. The only way i could see ALfa expanding its niche towards those not already here is advertising for and more strongly supporting campaign play. No amount of talk will conjure up the volunteers with the skills and motivation to make that happen. I dont feel this is very depressing or disheartening. I enjoy what alfa has to offer. Things could be better of course, but few things are ideal and its not a dealbreaker for me.
Zelknolf
Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
Posts: 6139
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:04 pm

Re: A persistent problem

Post by Zelknolf »

Duck One wrote:data analytics is a big part of what I do professionally.
Duck One wrote:I use myself as an example because it’s experience I can draw upon without directly calling out another player.
Well, I'm sure I don't have to tell such a professional fellow that the plural of anecdote is not data, and that the burden of proof in this case is on the affirmative.
Duck One wrote:I wonder if this is the reason Mick turned in his wand, so he can let Arizma travel.
I also am sure that I don't have to tell a professional why such wondering undermines his credibility, particularly when the literal question was asked, didn't get an answer, and now the unanswered question is trying to be used to leverage policy.
Duck One wrote:However since you’ve brought it up and obviously done the analysis concerning volume of play, do you have data that relates policy decisions as it pertains player satisfaction and long term retention rates?
Your first post was about population and activity, but once I mention that we have data about population and activity, that's no longer enough? It's very hard to work on anything with a fellow who just pulls new requirements out of a hat when people don't reach his conclusions.
User avatar
Heero
Beholder
Posts: 1930
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:52 pm

Re: A persistent problem

Post by Heero »

Im on board with the 'No DMing where you play' rule now, which is a switch from previous opinion. If golden boy Tom Brady can turn out to be a great big cheater, then anyone here most certainly can also.
Heero just pawn in game of life.

12.August.2013: Never forget.
15.December.2014: Never forget.

The Glorious 12.August.2015: Always Remember the Glorious 12th.
User avatar
Duck One
Orc Champion
Posts: 423
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:51 am
Location: Indiana (EST)
Contact:

Re: A persistent problem

Post by Duck One »

Zelknolf wrote:
Duck One wrote:data analytics is a big part of what I do professionally.
Well, I'm sure I don't have to tell such a professional fellow that the plural of anecdote is not data, and that the burden of proof in this case is on the affirmative.
Your condescending tone aside, the challenge put forward by Shadowfax was to cite any policy that has an impact on getting players together. To meet this challenge I need only to correctly cite said policies and illustrate that they have a non-zero impact on groupings. I offered 5 such policies, with explanation of how these policies might impact grouping, and anecdotal citations to show the impact is non-zero. I used myself for illustrative purposes, not statistical analysis.
Zelknolf wrote:
Duck One wrote:I wonder if this is the reason Mick turned in his wand, so he can let Arizma travel.
I also am sure that I don't have to tell a professional why such wondering undermines his credibility, particularly when the literal question was asked, didn't get an answer, and now the unanswered question is trying to be used to leverage policy.
Regardless of whether it applies to Mick, it has to me, and you’d be hard pressed to say that it’s never come up with anyone else. You’re saying that nobody has ever had to choose between being a player or being a DM, and that restriction has had zero impact on DM/player groupings? Every ALFA participant that even considers picking up a wand has to weigh that consideration. Large or small, it has a non-zero impact.
Zelknolf wrote:
Duck One wrote:However since you’ve brought it up and obviously done the analysis concerning volume of play, do you have data that relates policy decisions as it pertains player satisfaction and long term retention rates?
Your first post was about population and activity, but once I mention that we have data about population and activity, that's no longer enough? It's very hard to work on anything with a fellow who just pulls new requirements out of a hat when people don't reach his conclusions.
I thought we covered this, but we can cover it again. My post was not, as you contend, about "population and activity"; i.e. a volume of play. My post was about getting players together, density, the likelihood that players and DM’s can and do form gaming groups; i.e. how those players are playing together. This is a quality of the game play, not a quantity of it. You didn’t share your data, methods, assumptions, derivatives, models, controls, qualifications, normalizations, etc., but somehow based upon volumetric quantitative analysis you could conclude that these policies have no qualitative impact. I am sorry if I can't concur with the symmetry of that logic.

How about this, instead. I'll work on getting a Ventrilo server up and running, and you can join along with whomever else would like, and we can have a mature conversation about it.
Duck One

Some guy who used to do some work 'round here.
User avatar
Ithildur
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3548
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:46 am
Location: Best pizza town in the universe
Contact:

Re: A persistent problem

Post by Ithildur »

I disagree with a lot of Duck's assessments but it's not necessary nor does it help our cause to have disagreement/debate habitually turn into snarkiness.
Formerly: Aglaril Shaelara, Faerun's unlikeliest Bladesinger
Current main: Ky - something

It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
User avatar
oldgrayrogue
Retired
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:09 am
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: A persistent problem

Post by oldgrayrogue »

Like Causk and Duck I can unequivocally state that the 2 PC rule has benefited me and my ability to play with more folks in ALFA. 2 PCs provides an option to log on to another server and play with an alternative PC when the server on which you play your main PC is "empty" or as causk describes, when you are stuck with one PC in the UD or something. I have also actively played in 2 different groups on 2 different servers more than once. Nor has the "sky fallen" as a result of that rule, as many who were opposed to it claimed it would. I would allow people to play as many PCs as they want, frankly. Same for the server password. Whether it leads to more people logging in or not why exactly do we need it?

As for the 30 day rule, if HDMs are routinely granting exceptions to this for the asking then what is the need for the rule? Just discard it.

The "time of travel" issue is clearly an impediment to grouping. When a DM is on teleports are routinely used by DMs to bring players together for a session. I frankly don't understand why we can't do that for players by the use of "magic portals" -- which are canon and common according to FRCS. Just place a portal in every major settlement. If you want to charge a fee for its operation fine. But don't make my PC sit in a box for 10 min to arrive at the destination. That defeats the purpose. I admit this could cause problems for the "mail" quests, but those need to go anyway. They served a purpose when you had new players joining a server to get them to travel and know the server, but now most us know the servers like the backs of our hands.
User avatar
Ithildur
Dungeon Master
Posts: 3548
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:46 am
Location: Best pizza town in the universe
Contact:

Re: A persistent problem

Post by Ithildur »

Boats/caravans are already viewed as acceptable by most (implemented per HDM discretion on respective servers); I think it makes sense to add some IC portals (not necessarily a ton of them, just a few key ones judicially placed) to facilitate grouping up in a setting that's known for portals.

I could never get on board with lots of multiple PCs however; I've seen players hopping from PC to PC on other RP servers and felt there was a noticeable detrimental impact on gameplay.

Get (back) on the DM client if you want to RP lots of multiple characters! ;)
Formerly: Aglaril Shaelara, Faerun's unlikeliest Bladesinger
Current main: Ky - something

It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
User avatar
Duck One
Orc Champion
Posts: 423
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:51 am
Location: Indiana (EST)
Contact:

Re: A persistent problem

Post by Duck One »

oldgrayrogue wrote:The "time of travel" issue is clearly an impediment to grouping. When a DM is on teleports are routinely used by DMs to bring players together for a session. I frankly don't understand why we can't do that for players by the use of "magic portals" -- which are canon and common according to FRCS. Just place a portal in every major settlement. If you want to charge a fee for its operation fine. But don't make my PC sit in a box for 10 min to arrive at the destination. That defeats the purpose. I admit this could cause problems for the "mail" quests, but those need to go anyway. They served a purpose when you had new players joining a server to get them to travel and know the server, but now most us know the servers like the backs of our hands.
Or replace the mail quests with quests to unlock portals for your character. Say when you first arrive on a server, the portal keeper won’t let you use the portals. He demands you perform some service to prove your adventurous spirit. Upon completion, he then informs you that in order to safely travel by portal to a destination, you must first travel by land there and imprint your image upon the other portal. (in other words, you have to walk it first time). Could be that the portal keeper on the other end might demand some service as well. By the time you’ve unlocked all the portals, you’ll have explored the major portions of the server and done a fair number of quests to earn your quicker travel rights. I’d probably lay out the portals in a hub/spoke fashion, with the hub near the server-to-server portals. Of course these are going to only be located in major focal points, not in every back-water outpost, and the real adventure is going to require getting out into the wilds on foot.
Duck One

Some guy who used to do some work 'round here.
Post Reply