How to bring back the people?

[I-KP]

IRC is so very much a problem. Like I said, if it was GONE. There'd be double the presence on servers. Garanteed.

You don’t have to shut down IRC to improve your own personal ALFA experience. Since I stopped logging in to IRC my attitude toward the game improved. The IRC bitchcraft circle is a pretty shoddy representation of ALFA for the newly indoctrinated (and for some of the veterans); that is not to say that these fora stand as paragons of ALFAn virtue but they are a handy (and above all moderated) interface into the A-game.

If you shut down IRC we lose a valuable contact point for technical assistance, particularly for those who play during the less populated hours. I still log in from time to time to speak to someone directly whereas I’d otherwise need to wait for the forum contact systems to shake themselves down; so for that reason alone, and despite my own grubby experiences with some of the less savoury individuals that lurk(ed?) in channel, I don’t support the idea of turning it off - even only as an experiment.

[Veilan]

Ronan is so much smarter than everyone here.

Yeah, someone should just make him run for some Admin job or something.

Wait... oh snap.

[dergon darkhelm]

Log in.......Play.

[t-ice]

I'd suggest greater rewards for pro-social behavior.

Force group play or GTFO.

It is sad indeed if we need to reward, let alone force, people to play DnD together instead of alone. If that is where ALFA stands, then it might as well shut down now.
(Though removing combat xp from loners might be for the better. But some xp should be there to entice a person to log in and keep the flag up so that someone else would then follow.)

People don't roleplay together not because they don't want but to because they can't - because they would not be roleplaying if they server hopped to meet the one or two other players (or DM) on. So people don't play (like myself). It might be too little too late, but the only way to help it I can see is either to shut down all but one server (and let DMs play on this server, too), or as Castano earlier said:

1 PC per server.

And because the lvl1 -grind is as awful as it is, start these PCs at lvl3.

The expanse of servers (relative to population) we have has let to the situation where all the kids play alone at their own sandbox. And at the end of the day, everyone is bored. Because these sandboxes are about playing together - even if that brings disagreements sometimes. People need to feel they play the same game together, if they do this then maybe even the chat and the forum would be most about exciting things happening in the game - and people reading would feel like wanting to join in.

The final, and ultimately ironic, part is that all the exciting talk that could encourage each other to play seems to be happening behind closed doors in player group forums.

[rorax]

Well...

I heard from other players around about the high number of players in servers like "Baldur's gate chronicles of the sword coast" . I have decided to do a compassion table to see why they have 30-40 people online almost any time and ALFA been struggling to get 10.

The data in the table is based on information i got from other people, so please correct me if i am wrong, also if there are other parameters you wish to add, please state so:





The point is to see what they are doing good comparing to us and maybe make changes accordingly .

[I-KP]

- More jam; less toast. If we can’t find more jam then we get rid of the surplus toast. ALFA’s current activity is barely enough to moderately populate two servers; I suggest keeping TSM & BG and combine key areas from all other servers into one ‘campaign location’ server that is only accessible by means of DM’d adventures.
- Remove the grind. Remove the early level grinding that only a minority of the current player base enjoy (if all previous polls are to be believed) and start new characters at Lvl3. (Retain the option to start at Lvl1, or 2, if a player so desires.)
- Let DMs DM. Slacken off on the legalese restrictions that current DMs are bound by. Trust your DMs to do their job correctly and ‘retire’ those who do not, rather than lash everyone to the millstone.
- Dilute the influence of the B-game. If you do not play the A-game then you should not have the power to cast an ‘admin’ vote on changes made to it. (Obvious administrative and technical contribution is obvious.)
- Limited open access. Consider opening all active servers to the public but limit their PC’s maximum level (to starting level + 1) and/or travel range until approved.

[Swift]

1. Restrictions;
- ALFA tells me how much exp I am to award. But aren’t I the DM given the responsibility by my peers? I am the creator of the story and know the players and challenges intimately right? Wrong. I am nothing but a delivery vessel for a set of predefined systems that do not take into account any variable at all.
- I can, as a DM, create the reward for my campaign right? Wrong. I am bound by another system that goes beyond peer review and campaign circumstances (like in any PnP game), and in some instances reference material itself. But all I want is a Ring of A with B on it? Can’t have A without B and that will lead to C which turns into 3 x C*300gp(G^7 x 0.3) which places it over the PC’s level by 12% so you can’t give it anyway.....

DMs can reward whatever the hell they like when it really comes down to it. If you think your session was worth 400xp per player and the time + difficulty says 200, you can just go "Fuck that" and play around with the combination until you get it to what you believe it was worth. The only person you have to justify it to is your HDM (if you ever have to justify it all).

The main thing was to avoid what was happening in NWN1 where the amount of XP gained for a session had more of an average baseline, rather than PCs on Server A getting showered with XP while PCs on Server B were getting nothing all because the DM decided what they did was not worthy.

I wont touch on the rest of the points as they are pretty valid, apart from:

Reduce number of rules. Replace with common sense and peer review

'Peer Review' in this case means even more out of game leg work for DMs ie pulling logs etc to review what DMs are doing. Considering the struggle to recruit and keep DMs, giving them even more Game B type things to do seems counter-productive.

Remove static admin. Replace with people that are intouch with the game

Anyone can run for Admin (who is in good standing). Anyone can vote for Player Admin and Lead Admin. If the community really wanted fresh faces in the Admin, they would vote for those people. People have complained constantly about Lead Admin, yet Veilan was voted in, what, 3 times in a row when the whole community was given a vote? And he is not the only Admin who has served multiple terms when put to a vote of their peers. The Admin themselves don't pick who should be there. If we want fresh faces, those people need to be serious about running, present a good platform and tell people why they should be there. If you went back over Lead or PA votes over the last few years, you are likely to find one or two candidates that did that and a whole bunch others who were either not serious or not really giving it their effort. Rumple was a great example this time around. Put up a good platform, gave good, well reasoned answers to as much as he was qualified to give and he won.

In short, the community votes for who they think is the best at the time. It should not be a black mark if they have been an Admin before (which some people seem to think).

[Adanu]

- More jam; less toast. If we can’t find more jam then we get rid of the surplus toast. ALFA’s current activity is barely enough to moderately populate two servers; I suggest keeping TSM & BG and combine key areas from all other servers into one ‘campaign location’ server that is only accessible by means of DM’d adventures.
- Remove the grind. Remove the early level grinding that only a minority of the current player base enjoy (if all previous polls are to be believed) and start new characters at Lvl3. (Retain the option to start at Lvl1, or 2, if a player so desires.)
- Let DMs DM. Slacken off on the legalese restrictions that current DMs are bound by. Trust your DMs to do their job correctly and ‘retire’ those who do not, rather than lash everyone to the millstone.
- Dilute the influence of the B-game. If you do not play the A-game then you should not have the power to cast an ‘admin’ vote on changes made to it. (Obvious administrative and technical contribution is obvious.)
- Limited open access. Consider opening all active servers to the public but limit their PC’s maximum level (to starting level + 1) and/or travel range until approved.

I can agree on all these points except for keeping TSM. That travel map is still pretty screwed. If anything, Keep BG and WHL/MS.

1. Restrictions;
- ALFA tells me how much exp I am to award. But aren’t I the DM given the responsibility by my peers? I am the creator of the story and know the players and challenges intimately right? Wrong. I am nothing but a delivery vessel for a set of predefined systems that do not take into account any variable at all.
- I can, as a DM, create the reward for my campaign right? Wrong. I am bound by another system that goes beyond peer review and campaign circumstances (like in any PnP game), and in some instances reference material itself. But all I want is a Ring of A with B on it? Can’t have A without B and that will lead to C which turns into 3 x C*300gp(G^7 x 0.3) which places it over the PC’s level by 12% so you can’t give it anyway.....

DMs can reward whatever the hell they like when it really comes down to it. If you think your session was worth 400xp per player and the time + difficulty says 200, you can just go "Fuck that" and play around with the combination until you get it to what you believe it was worth. The only person you have to justify it to is your HDM (if you ever have to justify it all).

The main thing was to avoid what was happening in NWN1 where the amount of XP gained for a session had more of an average baseline, rather than PCs on Server A getting showered with XP while PCs on Server B were getting nothing all because the DM decided what they did was not worthy.

I wont touch on the rest of the points as they are pretty valid, apart from:

Reduce number of rules. Replace with common sense and peer review

'Peer Review' in this case means even more out of game leg work for DMs ie pulling logs etc to review what DMs are doing. Considering the struggle to recruit and keep DMs, giving them even more Game B type things to do seems counter-productive.

Remove static admin. Replace with people that are intouch with the game

Anyone can run for Admin (who is in good standing). Anyone can vote for Player Admin and Lead Admin. If the community really wanted fresh faces in the Admin, they would vote for those people. People have complained constantly about Lead Admin, yet Veilan was voted in, what, 3 times in a row when the whole community was given a vote? And he is not the only Admin who has served multiple terms when put to a vote of their peers. The Admin themselves don't pick who should be there. If we want fresh faces, those people need to be serious about running, present a good platform and tell people why they should be there. If you went back over Lead or PA votes over the last few years, you are likely to find one or two candidates that did that and a whole bunch others who were either not serious or not really giving it their effort. Rumple was a great example this time around. Put up a good platform, gave good, well reasoned answers to as much as he was qualified to give and he won.

In short, the community votes for who they think is the best at the time. It should not be a black mark if they have been an Admin before (which some people seem to think).

I will just say this:

You are missing the forest for the trees. The main two 'positions' that have the power to really change things for the better are DMA and TA. LA is more of a check and balance for the rest. Most simply don't want to deal with all the resistance and crap they'd deal with if they tried anything new. There is a perpetual current of 'they don't care about peoples opinions, just what they think is the spirit of ALFA" from a *LOT* of players I've met. This is where I get the old boys club phrase. DMA is admin only, which severely limits the voting you get to see.

You want people to actually come back? Then fucking listen to them when they say something doesn't work instead of telling them to suck it up.

[Swift]

You are missing the forest for the trees. The main two 'positions' that have the power to really change things for the better are DMA and TA. LA is more of a check and balance for the rest. Most simply don't want to deal with all the resistance and crap they'd deal with if they tried anything new. There is a perpetual current of 'they don't care about peoples opinions, just what they think is the spirit of ALFA" from a *LOT* of players I've met. This is where I get the old boys club phrase. DMA is admin only, which severely limits the voting you get to see.

You want people to actually come back? Then Ƥøا listen to them when they say something doesn't work instead of telling them to suck it up.

Anyone can run for DM Admin.
Anyone can run for Tech Admin.

Tech Admin (and Infra Admin) rarely change hands because, surprise surprise, they deal with the nitty gritty of what makes the game work (and keeps the servers running). There are very limited people in the community with that knowledge, so it is no surprise that they do not change hands very much. When the servers are working and updates are coming, there is very little need for change.

As for DM Admin, the only people that cannot vote for them are people who are strictly, 100% players. Any kind of staffer? You can vote. Any kind of DM, active or relatively inactive? You can vote and the principle remains exactly the same. Put up a good platform, give well reasoned responses to why you should be DM admin and if you convince people, you will win.

Max called for a reduction in rules, to be replaced by peer review. Isn't that exactly what voting for Admin is? You put a case to your peers and they decide among those who put forward a case which one is better for the following 6 months. People can get up in arms about stagnation of the Admin body all they like, but at they end of the day, they are the ones that put the Admin in their seats. Add restrictions if you like, but at the end of the day, things remain the same: the candidate the community feels is best wins the vote.

Also, for the record, Curm never held an Admin position before NWN2, so unless the 'old boys club' includes people that have only stepped up in the last few years, I am struggling to see where their influence still sways things. The only proof of the old boys club still controlling things is the same people running for Admin and there are tons of other reasons why that it. There are no puppet masters.

Most simply don't want to deal with all the resistance and crap they'd deal with if they tried anything new.

When you are Admin, you only have to convince 2 other admin to get a majority decision to move ahead with something unless the Lead vetos it for being a terrible idea. If you have player support, it is that much harder to oppose. Yeah, Admin have to deal with a ton of shit that can drain the enthusiasm, but that has always been the case, even way back during NWN1. It comes with the territory of guiding a community filled with different and sometimes conflicting personalities. That is simply something that has to be accepted and, as you said, most people don't want to deal with that, they just want to play and have fun, which is exactly why you see the same faces popping up when Admin elections roll around. Admining is a very selfless job. You deal with crap so that everybody else doesn't have to.

[Adanu]

Again, you miss the forest for the trees.

[Swift]

Again, you miss the forest for the trees.

So explain what I am missing, without cursing or blaming the non-existent old boys club for all of ALFA's woes.

A brand new candidate who is an active player and DM and has never even run for an Admin position before just put his hand up and won off the back of a strong platform and balanced, well reasoned answers to questions from the community. The community as a whole chose this person. To the best of my knowledge, Regas had not been an Admin before his current stint.

So the last 2 elections have produced 2 new Admin, both fresh, enthusiastic and active players or DMs. I fail to see what is stopping anyone else from doing the same in the other Admin positions and going on to effect change

[Adanu]

Again, you miss the forest for the trees.

So explain what I am missing, without cursing or blaming the non-existent old boys club for all of ALFA's woes.

A brand new, never run before candidate who is an active player and DM just put his hand up for an Admin position and won it off the back of a strong platform and balanced, well reasoned answers to questions from the community. I fail to see what is stopping anyone else from doing the same in the other Admin positions and going on to effect change.

Just because you run for adminship doesn't mean you will win, or even get anything done. LA is NOT the same as DMA, don't try to compare them.

[Rumple C]

Other issues aside the soon to come push for getting DMS into regular sessions will have a great effect on getting more players spending more time in game.

It'll be good. Seriously.

[SwordSaintMusashi]

Again, you miss the forest for the trees.

So explain what I am missing, without cursing or blaming the non-existent old boys club for all of ALFA's woes.

A brand new, never run before candidate who is an active player and DM just put his hand up for an Admin position and won it off the back of a strong platform and balanced, well reasoned answers to questions from the community. I fail to see what is stopping anyone else from doing the same in the other Admin positions and going on to effect change.

Just because you run for adminship doesn't mean you will win, or even get anything done. LA is NOT the same as DMA, don't try to compare them.

That is the whole point - if you don't inspire confidence in the people voting for you, you're not going to win. That's not a conspiracy: That's just not winning a vote.

[Adanu]

Again, you miss the forest for the trees.

So explain what I am missing, without cursing or blaming the non-existent old boys club for all of ALFA's woes.

A brand new, never run before candidate who is an active player and DM just put his hand up for an Admin position and won it off the back of a strong platform and balanced, well reasoned answers to questions from the community. I fail to see what is stopping anyone else from doing the same in the other Admin positions and going on to effect change.

Just because you run for adminship doesn't mean you will win, or even get anything done. LA is NOT the same as DMA, don't try to compare them.

That is the whole point - if you don't inspire confidence in the people voting for you, you're not going to win. That's not a conspiracy: That's just not winning a vote.

True enough, but that isn't what I'm referring to. I'm talking about the rest of the adminship. I seriously considered running for DMA the last 'election', but I didn't want to do it until I've had the DM position on at least one server, just so I can have the experience of it.

I wanted that to be TSM, but I was rejected. Once I explore WHL, I might try it next time.