A Land Far Away

ALFA Chat wrote:(3:09:31 PM) DuskITB: instead of making 2PC rulle, why not just unite all servers under one?
(3:14:20 PM) DuskITB: unite BG and MS, TSM and WHL

Dusk brought this conversation up in an otherwise quiet IRC due to it being Christmas Day; however, while he is reluctant to open this up to the forum-mongers, I am more than curious to see how people think about this. Myself? My input is rather limited -- I am not a builder nor a DM, but I know numerous reasons that prevent server-mergers from happening: HDM/Builders' hard work becoming moot, player-size limits, ACR latency limits, module size/memory limit, etc. All these things stated, why would the question still be raised? Well, it seems...

ALFA Chat wrote:(3:16:31 PM) DuskITB: i have been talking to atleast 20 difrent players on other servers, told them to check out alfa, to give it a try
(3:17:08 PM) DuskITB: the first things most of them askd me is why do we need 4 servers...

We have twenty players on other servers who would check out ALFA; however, given our smaller population lately and our wide variety of servers, this question gets asked by people considering our community. I pose this to you, the ALFAns behind the community -- do you think this is what the next step is? Do you think having BG and WHL on the same module will make the community more accessible, or break it for all of the work flushed away? Do you think it will hurt ALFA or their work to merge?

Yes, this is a dead horse topic. Multiple PCs is a dead horse topic as well, but look what came about with it... and before anyone comments about my quotes, I asked permission first.

Just so you know, I will not be part of this thread after this post. This is just an attempt to either get the ball rolling for Dusk, or to see why ALFA won't budge. I personally have no preference either way; however, I do value input from the community to the community, because nothing happens without communication.

Merging servers is not feasible IMO. They are too big and would need massive amounts of effort to cut, slice and pare down into one server. For example you could merge BG and WHL (our 2 smallest servers) if anyone had the time to, but the mod size would require effort to manage it. Also WHL uses an overland travel map. Not sure how that would mesh with BG.

I won't play in a one server community with limited opportunity to explore. We're better off dropping the time limits on transitioning between servers and getting rid of silly comments about the OOC-ness of travel which are really directed towards "theft" of the XP and loot awarded by the server DM by the new arrivals.

If you want to make changes to ALFA make it easier for members to use our content instead of flushing it.

The reason the other BG has more players is because they have rapidly refreshing spawns to farm. (e.g. their Nashkell Giant farm)

That leaves Dalelands and the former Amn server as comparison projects.

It's there a hard size limit on servers in nwn2? As in, things break if they get too big.

Xanthea wrote:It's there a hard size limit on servers in nwn2? As in, things break if they get too big.

yes.

There is a 2gb RAM limit usable by the server, hence, the maximum module size, including scripts, temporary objects, terrain, areas etc.

Just a few quick thoughts here,

Size is the main issue I think, as folks have already said. I do think we ought to consider halting expansion beyond Amn, which will hopefully be on line soonish.

We might consider "walling off" one or more servers to allow no cross over but multiple pcs (as in you get a second pc on Amn but don't get to have that pc mix with the rest of ALFA). This may not be fair to the Amn team, it may mess with our pillar of "scope", one pc ect- but a thought anyway.

I'd like to see one server maybe made a campaign server, to allow a second pc under the above guidelines.

If we had only one server, we'd need to review our dm/ playing rules otherwise Dms couldn't play.

Cheers.

Things lag.. Back when I Beta tested TSM all those years ago, the server was huge in comparison to how tiny it is today.. And the lag was horrible.. NWN2 is not NWN1 where the servers could span great distances and not have a once of lag.. NWN2 is a resource hog.

There are sound technical reasons to not consolidate everything into one server instance.

We already have an integrated cross-server presence and messaging system. Finding players logged on to other servers is not really very different from finding someone on the same server instance.

The primary barrier to cross-server interactions are the intentionally imposed limitations on travel between servers (except between BG and WHL). If it is felt that those are too onerous, you should consider removing or adjusting those limitations rather than trying to stuff everything into one server instance, which will not be successful from a technical feasibility standpoint.

Just curios, would relaxing those cross server travel rules help? Can't help but think you'd have some players constantly charging in on DM events? I would like to hear the arguments for and against and we can take it up for consideration if you all think it's worthwhile?

i am hardlly the teach guy, and i dont want to see anyone hard work goes to hell.
i am just pointing out what other NWN2 players askd me first when i askd them if they would like to check out new servers.

a decent % of them see nwn as it is... NWN the game, not an alt PnP platform. i dont think those would like alfa rullz or will have much fun at alfa, which is allright, everyone need to find his place i guess.

the others didnt care allot about the rullz, they just cared about DM activty, which led them to ask me why do we need 4 servers, are there active DM plots on all of them? where is the most DM activity and where are the most players at?

those were the things i was askd first by more the 10 difrent players. sadlly i didnt knew what to tell them. seems BG and TSM are the only one actives latlly. i cant even recall when i last saw a player (not to say a DM) logd to MS. and last i saw was dan and rumple on WHL.
those guys play allot, not only farming statics. allot of them just enjoy the communty. think some are old age and see NWN as an RP platform they like. i hope in the next week or two i can convinced some to log and just see how alfa looks like.
i know they will have a rough start since they came from difrent place. but i do think DMs need to fucos on the lowbies and new players, even on the acount of the high levels and old ones (and i am saying it as a high level toon player).

eventually, when they will stay since alfa was and still great place IMO, all of us will benefit form it.
for most of us this is not just an hobby, nor a game. its a family, and like all families we have our arrguents, fights and so on.

the only reason i opend it, was ...well...going in to a server with 62 players logd at the same time and 4 DMs running around, getting tells that invite me to this and that, i just thought about how much fun that could be in alfa.

Basilica wrote:The primary barrier to cross-server interactions are the intentionally imposed limitations on travel between servers (except between BG and WHL). If it is felt that those are too onerous, you should consider removing or adjusting those limitations rather than trying to stuff everything into one server instance, which will not be successful from a technical feasibility standpoint.

There would also be issues from a server-management perspective. 62 players on a single ALFA server would be absolute hell for the staff. If you want less campaign/plot/story and more kick-down-the-door style play then 20+ becomes more feasible. Note I have nothing against this sort of play! We could have another server like NWN1's Daggerdale, though I hope in a more fitting setting. Keep in mind that with more players a lot of the due-process and whatnot in ALFA's dispute process goes out the window.

Though I think IC barriers are typically much more significant than the above mentioned travel restrictions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Player or PC density (aka the jam-toast analogy) is not and never will be an issue. A empty server affects no one - its empty. The issue is player and PC concentration, which is a different problem with different solutions. Furthermore, I'd consider any forcible (as in, by admin) reduction in ALFA servers and/or size to be clearly against pillar #3.

gribo, Basilica tells me that with a 64-bit OS, we're able to make full use of a 32-bit pointer address space and thus use all 4gb. There are also ways to possibly trim exterior memory footprints. None of our servers are anywhere near the 4gb limit - BG tops out at about 2.5gb when its been up for a while.

Castano wrote:If you want to make changes to ALFA make it easier for members to use our content instead of flushing it.

This is where I hope ALFA moves. Not that forcibly increasing density would not also increase player concentration (it would), I just don't think its best solution.

If the issue is perception of density, we could list BG's and WHL's population together, or not list WHL at all. Perceptions are more easily adjusted than mods are merged.

You know what the real solution is right?

Choose a server and advertise it as 'we offer gameplay closer in style to other PWs; roll up as many PCs as you like, we have +5 gears and faster leveling, lvl 3 start, etc.'. Let all the people who complain about ALFA not being enough like other servers play there. Let them invite their friends who prefer that style of play there as well. One server to rule them all, like they want. The player density and numbers will increase, just like they want. They'll be able to play the kind of game they prefer.

Close it off so they cannot travel to other servers, and players from other servers can't travel to this server.

The old school dinosaurs play on the rest of the servers; they lose player density even more, but they get to keep the game as they remember it... with less players and possibly less DMs.

Everyone is happy... for a while at least.

Not a pretty picture, is it? Just something to think about I think on both sides.

Though I suspect a lot of the old school folks would be quite happy with the above arrangement.

I'm fairly certain no one is suggesting as go full uber leveled wealth addled superPCs with our servers.

ditto Adanu...i was merely pointing out most large projects have all the issues Ith mentioned.

Except 1: Dalelands. Cloud has brought that server up 1000 times. what are they doing we are not? or what are we doing they don't? I can say one thing: they are not rule lawyering the crap out of their game there. They have clearly stated rules in the start area and by and by people stick to them. There are not constant accusations of farming, metagaming, appeals over DMs etc. I think you can have 2 PCs there (can anyone confirm this - I know some of you guys play there ).