Revolutionaries wanted.

[Castano]

things you guys could build that would be helpful:

1. Waterdeep
2. Underdark
3. Skullport - i will give you my skull isle/river area build, so you have something to start off if you want it, and can see how to toolset a multi level platform cave city.


my picks for far off areas:

1. Chult
2. Sembia
3. Moonsea
4. Calisham

oh and i really think we need to bring the one PC rule up for a vote if we are gonna expand servers. otherwise please consider global DMing or rotating DM team focus from one server to another on a quarterly basis - per my modest proposal thread.

[Stormbring3r]

My two cents worth..

Instead of a new server.. How about expanding existing servers? Fix the area's that have a bajillion caves and no AT's.. Improve on what works.. I know of several players that have gotten bored and stopped playing.. I did, but I gave ALFA another chance and came back. If it were not for the awesome RP we have on TSM, I would already be gone again as the server has been nerfed to the point of only being able to walk from point A to Point B, and all the cave entrances that do nothing.

But maybe I am a sucker for great RP and the DM's that have awesome events

[Regas]

I'm at work so i can't get too detailed here but I have a few thoughts on this so far:

First, Mother, thank you for taking interest in building for ALFA. Contributions are always welcome. I would offer that admin has tossed around the idea of a "soft" hold on new server development under the heading of player dillution. I would certainly not pursue server development without clearing the red tape of the DMA's approval of adding a new server. IKP and Ronan very clearly reflect my thoughts on additional servers at least, and Cas is correct in what he offers as obvious choices. Watetdeep, Skullport and the travel and special places server would be a huge contribution to the project for my money.

As for red tape- there's some of that and it does detract from the project. I certainly like to see less of it and less drama as well. The trade of for having an egalitarian community- that is one without an owner with absolute authority- is that we accept process, rules and procedures over executive fiat. That goal combined with our goal of trying to treat folks as fairly as possible does require what many feel is bureaucratic BS. I am the first to acknowledge that our system isn't perfect and I'm always open to input on how things can be improved. Likewise, I hope you can muster some degree of respect for the efforts of the memebers engaged in trying to improve the project while keeping the wheels turning. It may not be perfect but ALFA is what we've made it- if you can help us improve the project, all the better.

As for what ALFA needs most- please come and DM, motivated DMs are what we need most of all.

Thanks,

Regas

[Zelknolf]

Not to be offensive but looking around, it doesn't seem that the opposite has worked either.

I would be curious as to where you're getting your numbers from?

The ones we actually take that measure player activity on the macro scale imply that the last year of ALFA has seen increased population and activity, when the expected trend (sunsetted platform with a client that has an unstable price, low visibility, and limited digital distribution opportunities) would be downward.

Would echo Regas on the "things aren't perfect" and "we could be doing things better" angles, sure, but trying to frame our improved standing as if it was overt project failure is more than a little silly.

[Mick]

Mother, what IG experiences have you had since returning? Have you encountered specific things that have left you unsatisfied and therefore desirous of more?

Thanks for your willingness to step up!

[mother]

Actually, I am just practicing the fine art of hornet's nest kicking. I needed to see what I was dealing with in this incarnation of ALFA. I like the attitude of the leadership here now, much better than before. I would argue that perhaps there is an atmosphere of apathy maybe... complacency perhaps. But given the age of the game and the vision of the project, that should be expected. A redirection of vision may be in order but we will see more as we progress.

I have my sights set on Thay at the moment. I would have issues if it were not my area from scratch, I think. I could possibly get into an underdark area as well but I am thinking that I would make it canon-level-dangerous and who wants to brave a death trap?

I do think ALFA would be best served by adopting a 1 character per server limit rather than a 1 character in general limit. That would spread out the players that we do have and give them options, which are good. As far as DM involvement goes, little can be done about that other than rewarding creation and effort. When you set the standard high, that can be a draw for other people to meet that same standard themselves, whether that is due to competition or even a sense of community pride, give it a name.

[Heero]

I have no desire to build Thay.

*draws line in the sand*

[Heero]

I also lack the desire to build Waterdeep and/or Skullport.

*fortifies the sand line with a moat*

[CloudDancing]

I'd suggest being let into the FTP and seeing the ten different folders of uncompleted servers just sitting there. People get really hyped up, they do a bunch of work, then they burn out.

Speaking as a player who played too much, there are not enough players to fill one server right now nonetheless four.

This is because the game UI has reached the point of becoming utterly archaic. It foils nearly every attempt to enjoy an adventure from either side of the screen.

And simply put, the UI limits and destroys the ability to play table-top style D&D adventures entirely because we are reduced to depend on an engine to interpret our actions, rolls, and so forth. In a table top game we can slow down and take every step carefully. With the UI we are mashing buttons in a careful pattern HOPING our message via button mashing reaches someone's homemade server on whatever level of internet connection they have, it is registered in due time, and the results of our button smashing are recorded and relayed back.

Thus when the computer works faster than the operator by normal human defect or disability even, your character dies. Add to that the layer of the Dm being under the same constraints, if they don't mash their buttons fast enough you quickly loose control. If you can't admit you lost control and retcon, again people loose important characters, loose interest, and once again the DMs seem like player killers while a table top DM can simply slow things down and take their time.

A level 10 Ranger's life should not be subject to the whim of how good their user can smash a button, nor should a level 8 Druids effectiveness and abilities to save a life be curtailed again because their button skills are low OR their internet speed is not fast enough for them to heal.

My overall point being is that Alfa has peaked and is in the slow but inevitable decline to obsolescence. We can improve and build on what there is and make it enjoyable for "RP" but in the face of what has been made in the last ten years, everyone who likes to mod and build are simply holding their breath waiting for the new UI and game that will put this one gently into it's grave.

There will be no new players to NWN2 because younger people have an expectation to be able to run, jump, fly, and have all the bells and whistles that MMO's use that KEMO, for example, programmed in. They also expect responsive UI's that don't kill you with delay and a certain level of resilience from low level characters which give them the freedom to try out a diversity of characters and enjoy the process of doing so.

So Alfa merely exists now for the nostalgia and entertainment of the remaining players that currently use and travel between the various virtual worlds supported on Gamespy and the rare hobbyist who crosses over for a time, but usually does not stay for long. I can think of 100 things to entice those hobbyists and nostalgic players to play here and that effort far more worthwhile than building yet another server on Gamespy with no players and one or two very lonely DMS.

[Heero]

Well, Im building a new server whether you like it or not.

[wvincenti]

I'd like to see what Team Mother can come up with.

-Bill

[Galadorn]

yawn....lock it

[Ronan]

More specifically, I'm indicating that diluting a player base across numerous servers is absolutely the wrong action to be taking when active player numbers are on the decline; interactivity is key so all effort should be taken to improve that, not harm it further still.

I think you're over-simplifying a complex problem. Player density in and of itself is not always good thing, nor something to always strive for. What we want is players and DMs to be able to meet up when they want to. If they don't want to meet up - say because they don't like each other, or they feel like doing some solo exploration - then more density is not a good thing. More precisely we would prefer to let people explore their own individual preferences rather than simply smash them all together and say "its more better".

We're dealing with a coordination problem, not a density problem. Physical proximity can lower coordination costs, but it has plenty of disadvantages.

I can think of a number of barriers to people meeting up:

• They dislike each other OOC. There's nothing we can really do about this in terms of server design except provide hubs to separate the haters.
• They dislike each other IC. This can be a barrier to enjoyment of the game if the players have trouble forming parties due to IC differences. It can also provide enjoyment - the difference is in the eye of the player, and is his or her problem to resolve (possibly with DM aid).
• There are physical barriers in the way. This is "too many severs", as we do not promote someone travelling from TSM to BG in order to chat over an ale. If a player is unhappy with the density in their area I would first suggest talking to a DM about it (possibly getting an IC reason to move) before removing a server from play.

As others have noted, ALFA's one-PC rule is a big barrier in the way of creating and organizing new player groups.

Frankly, 20 people on a night is probably too many. Its hell on the DM team keeping up with everything thats going on. 10 Is a much nicer number, say two parties of 5, one with a DM and one without. Still the optimal density is going to vary greatly based on party dynamics, OOC player-group organization, DM proficiency and free time, and OOC hate. In my experience TSM could potentially support much higher densities than BG because the players get along much better in IC and OOC terms. It would be very common for JLM to get everyone in the server involved in most of his sessions; you simply cannot do this on BG.

I think the cause of ALFA's recent decline in player numbers should be obvious. BG was by far the most active server, and BG DMs are now largely inactive. TSM has more active DMs now though, and more active players, though it is not approaching BG's level of activity from last spring. Longer-term trends in player numbers are naturally influenced by different factors, like admissions.

[Sidhe]

I am also concerned that the ingenious creative force that made ALFA a place that myself and many others still checked on 10-12 years into it (due to the fact that it was a high water mark for the D&D community that we love) has suffered a substitution it seems. Instead of focusing on the things that would keep the community rolling ahead and the creative juices flowing, someone has decided that bureaucracy, red tape, systems, rules, parameters and insufferable egalitarianism was the way to go.

This got me really excited for a moment, was very tempted to click on the DM client and get into BG again - then I remembered doing so may subject me to a 100 day bureaucratic bum shine based on the delusions of a socially defunct nut case.

Instead of dissuading you I'll simply say good luck mate.

[I-KP]

I think you're over-simplifying a complex problem. Player density in and of itself is not always good thing, nor something to always strive for.

It is a complicated problem, one that doesn't need to be exacerbated by spreading the remaining available jam even thinner, over yet more slices of toast; doing such a thing just doesn't make sense these days. (And when I say density I don't mean cramming everyone into one area. I mean enabling face to face interaction via in-game means that can be achieved within that same session without contravening meta-game rules with regard to game world distances.) I'm a player who likes to stay put, I respect the real world distances being portrayed within ALFA and I don't server-hop every two weeks or so in order to keep track of a small, nomadic player base. Hopping around like that, for me, does nothing to help construct a picture of a wide and lively world in my mind, in fact it does the complete opposite: ALFA often feels barren and deserted with vast tracks of land that go unused and sometimes even unappreciated.

The direct causes of lack of player density are up for debate; more servers do not in and of themselves create a lack of density, lack of humans logging in does that. The point I'm trying to make is that server real estate should expand (and perhaps contract) in accordance with demand in order to maintain a concentration of interactivity within a game that does at least try to limit travel based on the game world distances involved. Right now it's easier to lessen the symptoms of lack of player density by simply saying, 'thank you for the interest but right now we don't need more slices of toast, we have enough to be working with.' What I'm advocating here is to stop making toast until we've got some more jam to spread around; maybe the OA experiment with MS will bring that. After all, it's not as if creative juices can't be put to valuable use on helping to reinvigorate neglected areas of the game that we have in active service right now.