The Second Big Player Density Poll

[Valiantman]

Voted for A although it has far too much math included and is therefore doomed to be ripped apart as the building actually starts.

[Rick7475]

I have still kept an eye on it and except for what I assume are special events where 15+ players will be on a server (frequently Waterdeep) most servers are empty or have one or two players on them.

You've been away for a while. Daggerford averages 5 - 10 a night with about 15+ for events.

I see Shadowdale with nice respectable numbers,.

I have seen TLR with nice numbers.

WD has nice numbers.

Those are the ones I remember off the top of my head in the last 5 weeks.

[Tathkar_Eisgrim]

At ALFA Gold + 16 weeks, we will have had enough time to generate some player number trends. If those trends show that we have achieved an average of 1-6 players on for 10 hours a day across a period of 28 days and the scope of all servers, density targets will be considered met for the first Expansion release.

Emboldened for emphasis.

1-6 players is a success?

I think this target is painfully low, even at a barest minimum. A successful Persistent World - in my opinion - is greater than a large PnP party size. I suggest a Persistent World should include at minimum:

- At least 2-3 parties of players..
- Catered for by 1 Plot DM.
- Catered for by 1 Coincidental Plot DM.
- One party being catered for by the Plot DM.
- One party being catered for by the Coincidental Plot DM.
- One (optional) party entertaining itself via independent roleplay or static quests.

That's per server. Per night (peak time). Anything else and you aren't doing your hard work in creating the server justice. There will be players enough to fulfill this quite easily, if you can make a good impression, lure them through the door - and keep them entertained (or entertaining themselves).

Seriously, each server should be more than a playground to host one PnP session once a week. Be bold, set your sights higher.


Tath.

[GFWD]

I don't think that player density is the issue I am concerned with. My biggest concern is DM density. I have played on Daggerford and Shadowdale so far and both have had similar player density numbers but Daggerford had waaaaay more DM density.

I have enjoyed both servers but my preference is definitely the server with more DMs, to the point that, as much as I enjoy Shadowdale, I am thinking of moving on.

So I think server number should be looked at based on how many DMs there are to spread around.

[Dorn]

At ALFA Gold + 16 weeks, we will have had enough time to generate some player number trends. If those trends show that we have achieved an average of 1-6 players on for 10 hours a day across a period of 28 days and the scope of all servers, density targets will be considered met for the first Expansion release.

Emboldened for emphasis.

1-6 players is a success?

I think this target is painfully low, even at a barest minimum. A successful Persistent World - in my opinion - is greater than a large PnP party size. I suggest a Persistent World should include at minimum:

- At least 2-3 parties of players..
- Catered for by 1 Plot DM.
- Catered for by 1 Coincidental Plot DM.
- One party being catered for by the Plot DM.
- One party being catered for by the Coincidental Plot DM.
- One (optional) party entertaining itself via independent roleplay or static quests.

That's per server. Per night (peak time). Anything else and you aren't doing your hard work in creating the server justice. There will be players enough to fulfill this quite easily, if you can make a good impression, lure them through the door - and keep them entertained (or entertaining themselves).

Seriously, each server should be more than a playground to host one PnP session once a week. Be bold, set your sights higher.


Tath.

Dunno you tath but i like the way you think! 1-6 player on for 10 hours means you could have 4 players on for 2 hours each without anyone else. An example, in my opinion, of planning to fail. This option means that you could probably achieve exactly the same as option C or D in the end.

I agree that we should be talking 1-3 parties (4-6 players) on at each of the euro and US timezones (we aussies will have to find a place dependant on our timed DMs) to drive player interaction. This allows decient adventuring if you are a LG, or a LE as groups form accross the alignment spectrum. Will mean people can play openly evil chas instead of playing levels 1-6 as a pretend goody then turning bad.

I ALSO agree that DM density is just as important. If you have 2 parties of 6 player and only 1 DM that DM better be VERY good...or there will be a tendancy for the groups to merge making the party too large to be effective.

In fact DM density may be THE most important thing as even if you are the only player ona server, a DM can make it fun.

Both player (ie party) and DM density need to be related whatever option is chosen.

I'm certain we wont get the above and people will say it's realistic...but i'm offering one high level approach in the hope it will drag the plan towards it at least part of the way.

[MShady]

I'm kind of astounded at this density argument and what effects it would have on ALFA it had been applied earlier or was applied now. As Rick pointed out, DF, WD, SD have decent numbers. But that's about it. Right now. If this density argument was in effect, we would not be adding any of the great Beta servers, like Moonshaes, VolV and maybe NorDark. We'd also be short alot of other servers that we have. How big would ALFA/NWN1 be right now if we practiced this strategem for expansion. Enormously smaller, and that'd be a real tragedy. This whole density argument, to me, goes against the principles of ALFA. We're trying to recreate Faerun. If HDMs want to do that, let them. People will go to where they want to play. A larger number of servers would attract more folks. I daresay, if it wasn't for ALFA's physical size, we may not even be running now.

Mike

[Mayhem]

This whole density argument, to me, goes against the principles of ALFA. We're trying to recreate Faerun.

Last time I checked, Faerun had lots of adventurers in it.

Without adventurers, any repreresentation of Faerun will be a digital sculpture of no intinsic value.

***

If ALFA's goal was purely "recreate fearun, screw the playability" it could have been completed long ago.

[Swift]

Last time I checked, Faerun had lots of adventurers in it.

Without adventurers, any repreresentation of Faerun will be a digital sculpture of no intinsic value.

***

If ALFA's goal was purely "recreate fearun, screw the playability" it could have been completed long ago.

If a HDM is willing to build a server from scratch, and is quite content to see it sit empty for the majority of the time, apart from a regular group playing once or twice a week*, then that server is serving its purpose, and thats a group of players we might not otherwise have, and is thus valuable to ALFA.

The only reason we have these density targets is for public appearances. Numbers on servers when potential players see them in Gamespy.


* Think TFN when the Lonelywood Elves were the only group playing

[Tathkar_Eisgrim]

If a HDM is willing to build a server from scratch, and is quite content to see it sit empty for the majority of the time, apart from a regular group playing once or twice a week*, then that server is serving its purpose, and thats a group of players we might not otherwise have, and is thus valuable to ALFA.

The only reason we have these density targets is for public appearances. Numbers on servers when potential players see them in Gamespy.


* Think TFN when the Lonelywood Elves were the only group playing

I don't get that philosophy at all. You're basically saying, each server is being built:

- As a vanity project for its HDM.
- To represent a portion of the Forgotten Realms with an NPC population of the tens of thousands, but have a PC population of X, when you can have a PC population of multiples of X.
- It's okay to spend hundreds of hours building something for a small group of people to enjoy.

I would have thought it in the ALFA projects best interests not to settle for a low number of visitors, but to aim for a high number of visitors. Not to aim for second best but to be the best.

I can only be complimentary on the quality of the servers you have created - the build quality is second to none - why would you want to aim for the dirt with population numbers, when you could aim for the moon?

It almost sounds like you're scared of success and having to cope with high player numbers...

The only reason we have these density targets is for public appearances. Numbers on servers when potential players see them in Gamespy.

Wow... ...really.

If this is truly your philosophy, you havent created a Persistent World. You've created a sandbox to play PnP D&D in once a week...



Tath.

[RangerDeWood]

After looking over Option A I'm a bit confused. In theory it and Option B are different, but in practice they'll be pretty much the same. If I understood Option A, new servers will only be added once a set "density level" has been reached. If that level is never reached, we could end up with 7 servers as those are the only ones that are 'garaunteed' to go Live.

Personally, I enjoy the variety we have in ALFA now. IMO there's not much difference in feel between ALFA 04 and ALFA 11. Yes, they're widely different, but the feel is still vast, untamed wilderness. Reading over the ranking list it looks as though ALFA2 will be rather diversified, but after reading the proposal in Section D it looks as though (if we don't keep up good player numbers) we'll only be building Northern Faerun.

I like Option A, but feel it's focusing on areas that aren't easily fillable. In short, if the ranking were more focused on western Faerun and spreading east I'd take A in a second. I'm not going to vote because at the moment I'm split between Option A and C. Option C sounds like we have it now, but I chose it because I read an emphasis on the the ability to host. Proof of hosting capabilities should be given before a server is OKd. There's been too many good servers that have gone because of lack of hosting.

[darrenhfx]

Vanity is not the term I would use for this. Some people enjoy building very much. There are a number of ideas, particularly on the NWN2 portion of the forum, on how to combine both density and allow builders the opportunity to enjoy doing what they do.

"NWN2: ALFA Server Organization" is the heading under which much of this discussion has and is currently taking place. (for those who are new)

In my opinion, a server that is used less often does not detract from the overall appeal except when you focus on the gamespy numbers game.
If it is maintained with the same level of standards as the busier servers it gives parties, not necc solo players, the opportunity to take their adventuring wherever their interests lie.

[GFWD]

What is the rule for DMs moving across servers?

I don't think that building lots of servers is necessarily a problem as long as the DM team can look and say "Oh, Server X was at zero last month, this month we have noticed an average of 10 people on it a day, we need to move someone to server x to help that group out".

My understanding is DMs have servers they want to stay on, so the problem isn't too many servers it is the fact no one wants to head over and DM on those servers so those servers get used less often.

I know there are servers I would check out if I knew that it would eventually get some DM attention, but right now I play, and craft my background information to fit my character into a server I know there are people on and that will have DM attention.

[Rick7475]

What is the rule for DMs moving across servers?

I don't think that building lots of servers is necessarily a problem as long as the DM team can look and say "Oh, Server X was at zero last month, this month we have noticed an average of 10 people on it a day, we need to move someone to server x to help that group out".

My understanding is DMs have servers they want to stay on, so the problem isn't too many servers it is the fact no one wants to head over and DM on those servers so those servers get used less often.

I know there are servers I would check out if I knew that it would eventually get some DM attention, but right now I play, and craft my background information to fit my character into a server I know there are people on and that will have DM attention.

We have had guest DM's on DF before, and I don't mind that at all, as long as they know the canon and try not to use existing NPC's unless they know them well enough from canon or have been in contact with the existing staff.

[FanaticusIncendi]

ALFA reminds me of suburban sprawl and unplanned growth. Let's do it right this time.

Bravo!

Oh...A

[AlmightyTDawg]

I continue to differentiate between "initial" and long-term strategies here. Initially, I think density is an appeal to player-to-player interaction independent of DM interaction. It's also an appeal to organizational focus - best to do a few things really well than a lot of things mediocre, or so the analogy goes. I'm reading this as an initial strategy, which is all it's planned out for.

Long-term, I'm not necessarily convinced. What I do believe is that if we just set people about building early on, you can't take that back. If you find you're gonna have 25 servers and only 150 players because few people are out recruiting or even actively DMing in your recruitment drive phase of organizational life, boy don't you wish you'd not committed to that early on. Servers built have a certain sort of "squatters' rights" - they're not going to be shut down, and it's even more rude to suggest that you might decide at some point all servers in Beta are staying in Beta. Talk about bait and switch, that's just not a way to treat people.

I'd personally like even a little bit more freedom to expand even more quickly if targets get met. I know some people have talked about NWN1 Live being with six servers and each of them often being an overcrowded madhouse. There might be some unfortunate effects from "too much density" in terms of player conflicts and all sorts of things. My advice has been to guarantee up to eight, and have a bit more flexibility of having an extra server in your hip pocket most of time time beyond those "expand by twos."