Player poll: Prefered solutions to the density problem?

[Ronan]

Which one of these options do you think would increase your enjoyment of ALFA(2) the most, when playing?

[Keith Mac]

A Server that has either not been logged into by a Player or DM for a period of one month be deemed "dead" and put back to beta...

Servers be monitered to make sure they conform to a structured list of rules/criteria to either make live or keep their live status....

Allow a portal from every server to every server by magical means if Necc., regardless of whether or not it follows canon....(We alter canon after the first day of live anyways and it would open up travel possibilities to enhance ENJOYMENT for many)....Example: Arabel City Magic shop would offer teleportation as a service for a agreed upon amount of GP.........Example: Ship from TPI combines with caravan to bring you to the Frozen North with one Scripted Conversation...

And also make a clear stickied thread for each server where each Player/DM can post only once(And edit/delete as neccessary) with there Play times and styles.....

[Audark]

I voted for change nothing, because for all the potential pitfalls I believe in giving the player the maximum choice. Yes this may mean other negative aspects to density, but tinkering with which servers are live or sent back to beta after being live I can see as a very contentious issue, especially with density figures being discussed for alfa2.

If a server is dead, so be it, remaining players /should/ travel on their own accord to more active servers, if they do not, that is their choice and one they must be content with.

[Ronan]

A Server that has either not been logged into by a Player or DM for a period of one month be deemed "dead" and put back to beta...

Well, I don't know that even the deadest servers never have anyone log on for an entire month. And if they were so dead, then cutting them would not effect the density of existing servers, since no one plays or DMs there to travel elsewhere.

Halrin, did you believe the 4th choice restricted freedom in any way?

[maxcell]

I honestly don't think "keeping it the same" would solve the density issue, though that may be a mute point since NWN2 will bring in a whole slew of new players.

Who was here at ALFA inception? How many servers were there and how dense were they?

[Nyarlathotep]

We had fewer servers early on, DD and WD were by far the most populous and dense. Of course despite this for a variety of reasons DM coverage was considerably less (at least in my experience) than it is now.

[Dorn]

I went for option 3.

Why?

Well i agree when we start NWN2 there will be a surge of new players. SO thats good.

But by limiting the total number of servers dependent on loading of players/DMs then.....well we absolutely ensure density is maintained.

But we WILL have to consider the fa that these numbers will die off.

ALFA is not the most popular of Persistent worlds, look at avlis and so on and you'l see good healthy numbers there while we have 2-3 people on at a time spread accross the whole of ALFAs 13 odd servers. Thats becasue we are a hardocre RP and heavily rue oriented PW....a niche.

As a niche we need to ensure that we maintain a high quality game to avoid haemoraging players. Part of that quality is regular access to DMs and groups of players to intereact with. We cannot afford to oversupply 'bad' product (ie loads of content with no DMs/Players) in a niche market or we lose poeple or people just dont come in the first place through word of mouth.

So as our numbers decrese we should tailor our world to suit that. Hence look at the possibility of removing any 'dead' servers to consolidate players/DMs.

Hell it's even being suggested now in laddy's 'where is everybody' thread that we all congregate somewhere. THink of that in ALFA terms it means all going to one/few servers.

Just being able to remove servers is ineffective as it will allow too many to be built in the first place and waste peoples well intentioned time.

Just being able to restrict servers doesn't solve the long term proeblm of initial peak then declining numbers

A mix of the above will work.

Arranging DMs/Player times is essential in any system and shouldn't be a seperate option. It should be standard practice.

Doing nothing is, IMO, fairly ignorant and (possibly stubborn in terms of trying to win this pole..better to offer an alternative under 'other') when looking at the pitiful numbers ALFA draws to its HUGE number of servers now days and the regular questions of people about finding DMs and players. TO say things are working is a littel silly. We have to think beyond our own expereince here and think of the broader ALFAn experience.

[Ronan]

Doing nothing is, IMO, fairly ignorant...

I would venture to guess that most people who voted to do nothing are probably either happy with the way ALFA is now, or feel the other options are not worth their costs (as Halrin did).

[Dorn]

We have to think beyond our own expereince here and think of the broader ALFAn experience.

Thats kinda why i put this in mate

We have to look at the situation, look at the numbers, look at the posts and comments in chat about how thin we are spread and problems finding games and decide using that...not JUST our own experiences. We have to think 'stragegically' not operationally in this (apologies for the management speak )

And i meant ignorant in it's true sense....not as an insult like it's commonly used now days. As in that people may be taking a narrow or personal view of the problem iand ignoring to some extent the wider view. Stubborn...well i meant that properly The polles are always used to draw lines in the sand between camps and sometimes this is done to make points rather than think of best solutions...i think perhaps halrin is not one of these as he actually considered his answer

In regards to Halrins point i agree to some extent. Removing servers is a HUGE deal. But this is why i think we need to include a littel from point 1 where we have a limit to start with to stop the number of servers running away to 15 or something like we have now which almost REQUIRES cutting back.

If we had fewer servers then the chances of ever having to cut back would be significantly decreased. We might even be able to do so through natural attrition. I know of a few servers where HDMs have indicated that they would drop the server once it gets dead again/DMs go. But with 15 we would end up with more than one or two too many so it would get messy.

And are we talking about the same thing? IS this questionairre relating to ALFA1? or ALFA2? i'm talking alfa2

[indio]

Stick with Wynna's plan.

[Ronan]

We have to think beyond our own expereince here and think of the broader ALFAn experience.

Thats kinda why i put this in mate

The poll was not how to make ALFA more "successfull", attract more players, or improve a broader experience. To some, a successfull ALFA is full of players. To others, the broad ALFA experience is to span as much of FR as is possible. Still others are happy RPing with one or two people, rarely leaving a small area on a single server. The definition of things like the ALFAn experience varies immensely, and its something we'll likely never agree on. That is why the poll specified an individual's enjoyment and experience in ALFA.

[Mulu]

All I know is four out of five times that I would like to play on ALFA, I don't because there is nobody to play with on my current server of choice and traveling would not be IC right now. In fact, prior to tying my PC into TPI pretty well I was strongly considering dumping ALFA until NWN2 live, even to the extent that I filled out app's at two other projects.

So I went with option 1. I think we're losing players to inactivity, which just creates more inactivity.

[Ronan]

All I know is four out of five times that I would like to play on ALFA, I don't because there is nobody to play with on my current server of choice and traveling would not be IC right now.

So if your server was shut down, would you create a new PC, since s/he cannot travel ICly? Or if it was shut down would you travel regardless of whether or not it was IC?

Or did you mean you hopped shutting other servers down would bring more people to you?

[fluffmonster]

I would like to be with other players. I can make up reasons to travel with little trouble, but even so I need to know where to go. If a smaller sandbox keeps me with other players, I'm all for it. If people to play with are even congregating in some particular server out of a hundred, I'm all for that too.

Not sure how to vote though, I don't really get it.

[Dorn]

So if your server was shut down, would you create a new PC, since s/he cannot travel ICly?

I always think this argument is SOOO extremist sorry mate

NOONE would begrudge peopel moving server if one was closed down. This is a game afterall. Inventing an IC reason or something for a one off switch (ie not every day). It is always easy to come up with a reason...even if it invlves speaking to the DMs on the new server and asking for a hook to justify it. People did it when DD was down all those years ago and moved to SD. Peopl do it all the time when tehre are prolonged down times.

I think this argument falls into the alfa black and white attitude...rather than realising the world is made up of differing shades of grey.