A Land Far Away

Last one in the series, I promise. Here are the poll options:

Option A
I think the lead admin NwN 2 proposal contains a good set of player density rules. (EDIT: you only need to read section 1.D of the proposal, lazy bums )

Option B
I think ALFA should treat player density as we have done so far - being relatively open with accepting HDM apps, and then closing HDM apps more or less permanently at some point.

Option C
I don't think player density is a problem, so anyone who is willing and able should get to bring a server live.

Option D
I think ALFA should regulate player density in some other manner (please specify how in a reply).

If you think this poll is short on any poll options, let me know.

Option A: The topic you requested doesn't exist.

*grumbles* I was under the impression that players now had access to the admin forum. I changed the link to the proposal that was posted in this forum. Should work now.

Assuming that "A" includes a review process whereby if it sin't working we change it, rather than stubbornly forging ahead because "it is written", I'll vote A.

One hopes we get more freedom than such a strictly regemented timetable for NWN2.

Its not ALFA with 6 servers.

Nobody needs to assume anything. Please read the proposal before voting.

Section D. Initial Server Progression Overview (paragraph 3)

EDIT: Idoru, perhaps you can note that in your OP for everyone's benefit. It's a rather long document so let's help them get to the pertinent points so you get an honest response.

ç i p h é r wrote:Nobody needs to assume anything. Please read the proposal before voting.

But its so loooong compared to the other options...

You only need to read section D, paragraph 3. I know you can do it Mayhem!

ç i p h é r wrote:You only need to read section D, paragraph 3. I know you can do it Mayhem!

H. ALFA Gold Onward


1. DMA – A+8 weeks: #5 & #6 servers to Testing & Standards.
2. Lead – Every 4 weeks: Demographics report on Live Servers.
3. PA – Every 4 weeks: Application and retention report.
4. Tech – Base Mod, ACR, Hak updates.
5. All ALFA – A+12 weeks: #5 & #6 servers on Live Vault for Guaranteed Expansion date.
6. All ALFA – A+ 24 weeks: If density supports, #7 & #8 servers go Live
7. All ALFA – A+ 36 weeks: If density supports, #9 & #10 servers go Live

That guarentees 6 servers. All the rest depend on getting each server ranking up some arbitary number of hours per day over the span of a month from its players.

Hope none of them have a down week, cause then density numbers dont get met and expansion servers theoretically get delayed.

Option A.

Player density is and has been a problem for a long time. Though I haven't played in ALFA for most of the last year, 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.

ALFA is an RP intensive environment and vast amounts of player-free territory are not conducive to RP. Even the best RPer gets bored RPing with NPCs.

If we have 30 ALFAns online at any given time, I would certainly rather see them spread across 6 servers rather than 20. ALFA reminds me of suburban sprawl and unplanned growth. Let's do it right this time.

A is the closest to what I would like to see, but I think even that is expanding too fast. Player numbers and playing times per player is going to be higher at the start than later on, so density numbers are going to be skewed to start with.

And 3 months from start to live for the starting servers is wishful thinking, I think.

Also, the density expansion servers should be based from a density approval date rather than the ALFA Gold date.

Added a reference to section 1D, which is the only part of the proposal you need to read to make up your mind on this aspect of the proposal.

Pft, can't people even read a proposal? We need to bring WW2 back so he can put the fear of god back into you guys with some cliff notes.

Option C: I am unashamed of my preference to have as many well constructed serves as possible, regardless of whatever dire consequences people see in that. I'm not looking to argue, I just know that 'for myself' I want as many servers as we have now, I like the variety, of server construction and DM styles and I like to see new things being built that I may be able to explore.

That being said, option A does sound very rational and a good system, even without limits on servers, a staged implementation to ensure stability and success for players and servers is a good idea.

Section D describes the methodology, which is not apparent when you look at the roll out schedule in Section H. If you're really not interested in reading the whole thing, just read Section D.

I personally have not been an advocate for putting density ahead of diversity and never will, but I do believe it's wise to measure our performance with regard to player retention and to examine ways we can improve those numbers progressively and systematically. That's essentially what the proposal has attempted to define. It also leaves room to re-evaluate this if it appears that we are unable to impact player retention significantly enough to grow, which translates to ditching the dreaded "server cap" that we're worried about.

I think it's a very reasonable approach and a good initial strategy. Let's give it a shot.