How much do you play in a week?

[MorbidKate]

As I recall, at some point this thread was concerned about the XP cap. I'd just like to point out that if this poll is taken at face value, and we accept that the majority of ALFAns play 20hrs/week or less, it would actually argue for a higher cap.

Someone playing constantly would - in theory - rapidly accumulate small amounts of XP, say, consistently averaging 1000/week or so.

Actually, if players played much less than was expected, the xp cap number should drop since it would be almost impossible to gain a huge chunk of xp in that short a period in time. Someone who plays a lot shouldn't be punished however and I hope this cap idea isn't seen as such. For me the concern is WHAT players are doing when they do play a lot.

If something could be written up to cap just spawn/static xp to a weekly limit and leave DM xp uncapped, I would buy into that.

Based on a 20 hour play week, what would you suggest the xp cap be set at?

Kate

[Khazar Stoneblood]

I'd like to know why people think 200 are "active" in game. Where does that number come from? I'd also like to know why if that 200 number is correct it is assumed that the people voting on this poll are among that 200 "active" count. I play 2 hours a week tops (often less) so I'd probably not consider myself all that active... yet I voted in the poll because I spend a lot of time on the forums.

[MorbidKate]

I'd like to know why people think 200 are "active" in game. Where does that number come from? I'd also like to know why if that 200 number is correct it is assumed that the people voting on this poll are among that 200 "active" count. I play 2 hours a week tops (often less) so I'd probably not consider myself all that active... yet I voted in the poll because I spend a lot of time on the forums.

That 200 is a best guess average from speaking with many. Personally, I think the number is between 150-175 who log in-game regularly. If someone can get an accurate number, I'd certainly love to see it.

For the poll, nothing is being assumed because of the numbers of non-players who are able to vote. What is does do is show trends and give us some idea as to what's happening on ALFA short of actual hard data. In the case of the current Poll, I don't believe anyone has suggested that the numbers have been negatively influenced or bent to be considered tainted.

Also, I've been watching the numbers since about vote 50 and the numbers who have playing less than 20 hours per week has been a steady 67%.

What Wynna's numbers now show is that we have a large group of non-playing members who still maintain their interest in ALFA. I would like to ask them why they don't or rarely play anymore.

Kate

[Khazar Stoneblood]

I hate to be nitpicky... (well no, not really, I'm funny that way), but the numbers don't really show anything about us having a large group on non-playing members who maintain interest in ALFA.

All they show is that there are 600 people who have logged into the website in the past 3 months, and 400 in the past month.

It doesn't show anything about how much (if any) those people play... so assuming they are non-playing is just an assumption. People have been saying "We only have 200 active players" for quite some time now. I'd say Wynna's numbers suggest more strongly that we have 400 active players than we have 200 active players and another 200 that have logged in the past month and don't play on the servers.

As for the poll, I don't suggest the numbers are tainted, I believe it is possible you have a non-random sample. As someone with a strong interest on statistics (you'd hate to hear me talk about US elections) I can tell you that there is a strong burden on a pollster to prove they truly have a random sampling for the poll to be valid (see my comment about the Dewey/Truman election a few pages back). Also... a spot poll does NOT show trends FYI... you have to have several polls over time to get that.

The numbers in the poll MAY be valid. I'm not claiming they are incorrect. I'm just saying it's possible that you might have a non-representitive sample and that could cause the data to be incorrect. If that's the case, conclusions drawn from that data, and actions based on those conclusions could be incorrect, and in fact detrimental to ALFA.

And lastly, to be more accurate you may want to add a "0-5 hours" category. My reasoning is that people in this group could be considered "non-active" by definition. If 50 of the 58 "less than 10's" are also less than 5, then 46% of "active" players are less than 20 hours a week. It all depends on what your consider active.

[LBaeldeth]

Actually, if players played much less than was expected, the xp cap number should drop since it would be almost impossible to gain a huge chunk of xp in that short a period in time.

The assumption I am basing my conclusion on is that those only playing a small amount of time per week (like myself) use that time to be there when a DM is running a plot or quest. The large chunk of XP would come from the conclusion of a long and difficult storyline/quest, particularly for high-level PCs.

If something could be written up to cap just spawn/static xp to a weekly limit and leave DM xp uncapped, I would buy into that.

Me too. My concern is that DM quest rewards will be stuck at upper level X even though such an arduous task would ordinarily receive a reward of level Y.

Based on a 20 hour play week, what would you suggest the xp cap be set at?

I don't want one at all, personally. We need DM approval for levels above 3rd. If someone's levelling too fast due to farming/static-farming, don't give them approval until their RP catches up.

[MorbidKate]

People have been saying "We only have 200 active players" for quite some time now. I'd say Wynna's numbers suggest more strongly that we have 400 active players than we have 200 active players and another 200 that have logged in the past month and don't play on the servers.

No. We have about 400 forum members who are somewhat interested and about 200 who actually play. About 1/6th of our total membership. Spending any time watching the GS list should tell you we don't have anywhere near 400 active players logging into our servers.

I'd love to know how many regular players we have but we're limited on how we can glean that information with any accuracy. Knowing how many play, what level the average is, how fast they level, are we shrinking or growing etc... all things I wish we had because it's a measure of our health and it allows us to make changes to address what's really going on. Not what people think is going on.

Getting an idea on how often people really play is a good start. And Wynna's numbers tell us we still have a chance to reach out to a large group of members who are watching but not playing.... or DMing for that matter.

Kate

[Lusipher]

We wont know true numbers untill we switch over to NWNX2.

We could put up OOC info at starting locations asking players to log into the forums and vote their hours, but some will still not do it. So, only way we will truly know wont happen till we upgrade.

[Ronan]

I don't see why ALFA needs to be bigger myself. Its niche is small and doesn't lend itself to a large player base. IMO it compromises itself enough already.

[MorbidKate]

The assumption I am basing my conclusion on is that those only playing a small amount of time per week (like myself) use that time to be there when a DM is running a plot or quest. The large chunk of XP would come from the conclusion of a long and difficult storyline/quest, particularly for high-level PCs.

The xp cap number being talked about would never be hit by the player who only plays a small amount a week with or without a DM. In fact, it would be very very hard for any player to sustain the xp rate needed to hit the Cap via DM time alone. The Cap is aimed I would think at the players who spend huge amounts of time killing things and running statics because they are bored.

I don't want one at all, personally. We need DM approval for levels above 3rd. If someone's levelling too fast due to farming/static-farming, don't give them approval until their RP catches up.

That was the intention but it's not happening the way it should. One reason is players can call several servers home because they jump around so often. The result is that they can ask around to get validated doing an end run around the process. The xp cap targets those players and works in concert with validation to slow these players down.

Again, what do you consider to be a fair xp cap for the average ALFAn who plays about 20 hours a week?

Kate

[LBaeldeth]

In fact, it would be very very hard for any player to sustain the xp rate needed to hit the Cap via DM time alone

The large chunk of XP would come from the conclusion of a long and difficult storyline/quest, particularly for high-level PCs.

I'm not talking about this being a weekly event for each player. This would be something more rare but which would still be affected by the cap.

The result is that they can ask around to get validated doing an end run around the process.

Then there needs to be a crackdown on DMs, not players. If player X wanders in off server Y and asks the local DM to validate him, said DM should be looking at the RP player X has been doing. If he's only been on this server twice in the past month and spent most of that time farming/doing statics, there shouldn't be a validation. If there is, then the problem is with the DMs.

Again, what do you consider to be a fair xp cap for the average ALFAn who plays about 20 hours a week?

I don't want one at all, personally.

[MorbidKate]

I don't see why ALFA needs to be bigger myself. Its niche is small and doesn't lend itself to a large player base. IMO it compromises itself enough already.

ALFA was originally about the RP. The only way to RP is to get groups of people together but ALFA has steadily grown and expanded since it went Live meaning more and more players were needed to maintain a connect. It's now at a point were it's just too big for the number of players we have. It's pretty straight forward actually. What to do about it is more difficult.

At present we have too many servers that sit empty for great periods of time and we have too few Live DMs to go around. On top of that, the length of that beta list is just stunning to see.

So, we have three options until NWN2 comes out:

1. Group servers together, reducing our numbers and end the betas.
2. Bring in a LOT of new players so the player base isn't so watered down
3. Do nothing and try to get it right in NWN2

By the numbers I would say that between 8-10 servers should be the max in ALFA2. And since they can handle larger areas, it just might be doable.

Having said that, no matter what we do, creating an environment where players need to group together and giving them the means to do so is essential. Afterall, PnP is about the group, not the solo artist.

Kate

[MorbidKate]

The large chunk of XP would come from the conclusion of a long and difficult storyline/quest, particularly for high-level PCs.

I'm not talking about this being a weekly event for each player. This would be something more rare but which would still be affected by the cap.

Your worried about high level PCs hitting the weekly cap? Considering the numbers being discussed for this cap, I certainly am not worried about them.

The result is that they can ask around to get validated doing an end run around the process.

Then there needs to be a crackdown on DMs, not players. If player X wanders in off server Y and asks the local DM to validate him, said DM should be looking at the RP player X has been doing. If he's only been on this server twice in the past month and spent most of that time farming/doing statics, there shouldn't be a validation. If there is, then the problem is with the DMs.

Crackdown on DMs? Anytime anyone has even suggested they be more accountable and take greater responsibility they might as well soak themselves in gasoline. Threats to quit, claims of being unappreciated, unpaid job etc.. will come via lit arrow. A shame really since any active Live DM knows how much their really appreciated by the players. Serious talk of a cap is because Validation isn't working right.

As I said before, I wouldn't mind seeing DM xp excluded from the cap but since the cap is set so high, it may not be needed anyway.

Kate

[Lusipher]

Well, currently, we have 2 Live servers that might be going back to beta if a HDM cant be found. It might be a good thing, actually. The player bases from those servers will have to play in the other servers. Players will be closer together. We also have one server that doesnt have any players or rarely a HDM on it. That server could be sent back to beta as well. So, things can be done if certain events dont pan out soon (ie. HDMS found for those Live servers)

We will see a few beta servers going live in coming months to fill the void left by some of these servers. Hopefully, by then, we will see an increase in player retention.

[Ronan]

It's now at a point were it's just too big for the number of players we have. It's pretty straight forward actually. What to do about it is more difficult.

Well, of course I understand the problem I was just trying to point out that a reduction in the number of servers would also work. For this reason, IMO HDMs could be held more accountable. If their server is a wealth leak or doesn't represent FR with much accurancy at all? Take it back to beta... Do something so the HDMs have a motive to make their servers as close to ALFA's vision of FR as possible (which of course includes RP of the PCs and NPCs, loot drops, areas, etc). Of course this will never happen, but it would reduce the number of servers

Frankly though, I see no significance to the number of servers out there. Its the land size that counts, and some servers (like Shadowdale) are large enough that a group of players can be based on either end of them, and nearly never meet.

[Khazar Stoneblood]

People have been saying "We only have 200 active players" for quite some time now. I'd say Wynna's numbers suggest more strongly that we have 400 active players than we have 200 active players and another 200 that have logged in the past month and don't play on the servers.

No. We have about 400 forum members who are somewhat interested and about 200 who actually play. About 1/6th of our total membership. Spending any time watching the GS list should tell you we don't have anywhere near 400 active players logging into our servers.

Look, if you can't prove it, stop saying it like it's fact. PROVE we have 200 players who actually play. If you can't, I can claim JUST AS EFFECTIVELY that we have 390 players who actively play, because why bother logging into the forums if you aren't playing (unless you are Kalbar or one of the others who solely occupy the forums).

You say YET AGAIN that we have 200 active players. I say, I don't buy it. I often see 30 players at a time on alfa... and I've rarely seen less than 20 total (now this was some time ago when I was playing more regularly, things may be different now). I've seen 25+ on two seperate servers at the same time, with several at 8-11 as well. There are 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week, and 30 players logging into alfa at a time. If the average is 10 hours a week, that's 504 players logging on each week. If it's 20 hours a week, that's 252 players logging in a week. Both are above your "200 active players" that you refuse to admit might be totally wrong.

Just so you can do the math yourself.... 168 hours in a week * average # of players / average player hrs per week = # of active players.



and before anyone bashes my "30 players at a time", keep in mind that's an average. I've seen many EST nights with 25 on WD, 25 on SD, 15 on NC, 15 on DF, and 5+ on a bunch of other servers... we top 90 regularly at peak hours, so I'm estimating the average taking into account times with 10-15 on is around 30... I really think the average may be MUCH higher.