Server proximity

This is a general open discussion for all ALFA, Neverwinter Nights, and Dungeons & Dragons topics.

Moderator: ALFA Administrators

Should proximity to each-other be valued in selecting the NWN2 servers for initial development?

Yes
39
39%
No
46
46%
Don't care
15
15%
 
Total votes: 100

User avatar
Fionn
Ancient Red Dragon
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:07 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Fionn »

100, 1000, 10000 - the fact that there is rarely even a nod to the distances involved is an issue. The fact that those nods are not uniform is another issue. We don't need a 1000 mile journey to cost exactly 10X a 100 mile journey. We do need both of them to have some (increasing) cost. Put it on a logarithmic scale if we want to keep some playability with widespread servers. Set a cap on the maximum time/money/risk for a server portal if we need. Saying it's not playable to realistically depict all travel means we use 0 for the cost is rather silly.
PC: Bot (WD)

Code: Select all

     -----          -----          -----          -----
    /     \        /     \        /     \        /     \
   /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /
   |       |      |       |      |       |      |       |      |
  *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *|
_)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_(
User avatar
Killthorne
Orc Champion
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:22 am
Location: Saint Cloud, Minnesota

Post by Killthorne »

You know what? I was hard core. I even stayed on the same damn server out of HARD CORE-ness even when there wasn't a DM around for miles. That's one way to infuriate people to the point of leaving... I had enough patience to stick with it as long as I did... or should I say, put up with it. I fought with LF and people in the same predicament using the old "Hard core" statement as above. It's wrong. I was wrong.

Let's ease up on the Hard Core shall we? We are already hard core enough about almost every damn thing we do here. You fart here and there's a ten page discussion on it, with a proposal in the works about said fart. We're hard core enough.

edit:
100, 1000, 10000 - the fact that there is rarely even a nod to the distances involved is an issue. The fact that those nods are not uniform is another issue. We don't need a 1000 mile journey to cost exactly 10X a 100 mile journey. We do need both of them to have some (increasing) cost. Put it on a logarithmic scale if we want to keep some playability with widespread servers. Set a cap on the maximum time/money/risk for a server portal if we need. Saying it's not playable to realistically depict all travel means we use 0 for the cost is rather silly.
Yeah! Put some thought into making travel abit less easier.. and there you have it.

~Killthorne~
User avatar
Lusipher
Talon of Tiamat
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Northrend
Contact:

Post by Lusipher »

I voted No. I'm all for density, but I'm also all for more diverse places to visit. If we keep server hoping under control then I think we shouldnt worry about servers having to be closer. We just have to actually make sure things done get as bad as they have been in the past.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft.

Follow me on Twitter as: Danubus
Ronan
Dungeon Master
Posts: 4611
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:48 am

Post by Ronan »

Given that the overheads of a fully fleshed-out travell system might require an entire server, and thats not likely to happen, I doubt travel will be any more than it is now: stepping on a portal.
User avatar
fluffmonster
Haste Bear
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:54 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Post by fluffmonster »

Dorn wrote:
coach wrote:we've been portalling 1000 miles at a pop for four years now anyways
Which if you ask me is sh!t and we should stop now that we have a chance.

Hardcore? or harcore where it suites?


(ok, thats me being extremist, but you know what i mean) :) :wink:
Hey, if that's your RP religion, then good on you.

When you try to make your religion my law though...that's just plain old-fashioned wrong and you'll pardon me if I simply ignore you. I've earned my place here, me and many other hard-core alfans like me, and you've no special claim to RP purity.

In Fionn's words, this is about how we depict travel. The proximity argument is essentially that it can't be depicted over large disances, which is to avoid the question entirely in a rather brute-force way. Address the issue head-on, or accept the status quo.
Ronan
Dungeon Master
Posts: 4611
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:48 am

Post by Ronan »

I don't think anyone is trying to make anyone else's idea of RP their law... Frankly I don't see the travel issue as a big of a deal in comparison to the much-reduced server size, and the reduction in options that represents.

Its really just a total failing of the compaign setting if frequent travel is needed across huge amounts of terrain in order to connect "interesting" locals. My first thought would be that its better to change the campaign setting than violate the internal logic of it at a whim, but I know thats not going to happen.
User avatar
Fionn
Ancient Red Dragon
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:07 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Fionn »

Actually, if we reject [Halrua ?] because it's too far from the central servers, we *are* forcing religion (proximity) upon those that wish to play/build on outlaying regions.
PC: Bot (WD)

Code: Select all

     -----          -----          -----          -----
    /     \        /     \        /     \        /     \
   /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /
   |       |      |       |      |       |      |       |      |
  *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *|
_)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_(
Ronan
Dungeon Master
Posts: 4611
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:48 am

Post by Ronan »

Fionn wrote:Actually, if we reject [Halrua ?] because it's too far from the central servers, we *are* forcing religion (proximity) upon those that wish to play/build on outlaying regions.
Thats not a RP "religion", thats just a design decision. We aren't telling them how to RP their travel or their PC.

Given that player and DM isolation is, as I have seen as a DM, the single largest thing preventing people from enjoying themselves with ad-hoc play in ALFA, I would design ALFA to favor methods of bringing people together, within reason. If we are going to let up on IC distances and let people travel however they'd like, that seems fine, as long as we don't ban anyone for it or go on flame-campaigns against server-hoppers next time the pendulum swings back the other way.
User avatar
Fionn
Ancient Red Dragon
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:07 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Fionn »

We can design servers 3000 miles appart to be reachable by all but the poorest PCs (well, technically we could just put portals ala Dungeon Siege, but yikes). We could mandate that only servers with touching borders be considered. In both cases, we'll see the need for realistic yet attainable travel.

I see no huge difference in isolation between 100 miles of Drow infested road (say SD to Emerald Springs) or 1000 miles of the same road. Lower level PCs can't travel, higher level PCs can. What we need is an ALFA wide consistant Plan on how to move PCs from one active hub to the next IC.

I do not believe part of that plan should be blacklisting certain proposals because they are too far away. I don't think it should even be a major consideration. Either we can handle a cohesive travel system, or we're doomed to have the same issues we already have. Scale is not a technical hurdle in this case.
PC: Bot (WD)

Code: Select all

     -----          -----          -----          -----
    /     \        /     \        /     \        /     \
   /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /
   |       |      |       |      |       |      |       |      |
  *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *|
_)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_(
Ronan
Dungeon Master
Posts: 4611
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:48 am

Post by Ronan »

Fionn wrote:I see no huge difference in isolation between 100 miles of Drow infested road (say SD to Emerald Springs) or 1000 miles of the same road. Lower level PCs can't travel, higher level PCs can. What we need is an ALFA wide consistant Plan on how to move PCs from one active hub to the next IC.
I definitely agree there, distance certainly isn't the only factor. So, who wants to start the travel server proposal and code it all? ;) We can hope the area overhead for it won't be so much that it will need its own server, but I'm betting that won't be the case. And the code will still take a large amount of work.
Fionn wrote:I do not believe part of that plan should be blacklisting certain proposals because they are too far away.
We've blacklisted players because they travelled too much, claiming such behavior could not possibly be IC. We have players who sit alone on servers because they feel ALFA frowns on travel just to meet other people, and most of that I think is the result of Khondar/Hazel, and habits gained from the RP of DM-possessed NPCs who of course treat Faerun as big as it is. Eventually these players just stop logging in. And now we are saying we don't care how far we scatter our players across Faerun. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? I guess I would feel less strongly about this if I hadn't seen so many PCs on SD and BG simply quit playing ALFA because they couldn't meet anyone else. Density will help, but servers are still gunna die.

I think we need some sort of workable solution on this. Most people can't seem to stand walking across NC, let alone a travel server, so I'm betting the popular opinion will be to just say to hell with travel simulation, until another Khondar comes around and swings the pendulum back again.
User avatar
Fionn
Ancient Red Dragon
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 7:07 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Fionn »

not advocating a central travel server - this can be handled via standards ACR. I'm not oppsose
to ALFA_000 either.
PC: Bot (WD)

Code: Select all

     -----          -----          -----          -----
    /     \        /     \        /     \        /     \
   /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /  RIP  \      /
   |       |      |       |      |       |      |       |      |
  *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *| *  *  |*    *|
_)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_//(/|_)(__)/\\_(
User avatar
Lazlo
Dire Badger
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: Florida GMT -5

Post by Lazlo »

I voted No simply b/c travel or rather the concept of "passage of time" is an aspect of this game we will always be forced to RP.

Provide characters with a logical means of traveling either by foot or via some other method of transit, where cost is dependent on the mode, safety and time saved.

I'd rather not see a potentially rich and diverse server proposal declined b/c we are worried that persons will not be able to RP travel correctly.

Why penalize the rest of the community in terms of creativity, in anticipation of invdividuals who will abuse RP'ing travel?

Deal with them, like Khondar.
Warning: Game Experience May Change During Online Play

Past PCs: Exceeds the 325 character limit.

NWN2 PC: TBA
User avatar
Mulu
Mental Welfare Queen
Posts: 2065
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:25 am

Post by Mulu »

Zero cost caravans for the win!

Cause if you make travel expensive, or dangerous, all you do is reward people for having high level, wealthy PC's. Sorry, noob, you can't travel, you have to earn that right by getting wealthy and powerful.
Neverwinter Connections Dungeon Master since 2002! :D
Click for the best roleplaying!

On NWVault by me:
X-INV, X-COM, War of the Worlds, Lantan University.
User avatar
Lazlo
Dire Badger
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: Florida GMT -5

Post by Lazlo »

It should cost something to travel from server-to-server unless your mode of transportation is by foot.

Should it be very expensive? Probably not for reasons Mulu stated, but it should be scaled depending on the factors I mentioned.

If it were up to me, I'd create a formula with a lookup table in Access/Excel.

Total Travel Cost = Risk * Mode of Transportation * Distance

Note: The following is a theoretical example. :P

Risk: Low = 1 / Moderate = 1.5 / Dangerous = 2

Mode: Caravan = 1 / Boat = 1.5 / Magical = 2

Distance: 100mi = 25g / 1,000mi = 50g / 10,000mi = 100g / 100,000 = 1,000g

A very dangerous 1,000 mile trip by boat wold cost: 2*1.5*50g = 150g
Warning: Game Experience May Change During Online Play

Past PCs: Exceeds the 325 character limit.

NWN2 PC: TBA
Ronan
Dungeon Master
Posts: 4611
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:48 am

Post by Ronan »

Fionn wrote:not advocating a central travel server - this can be handled via standards ACR. I'm not oppsose to ALFA_000 either.
Well, if we are talking about generating areas for the purposes of thousands of miles of travel, I don't know how do-able that will be. That much distance will probably need a lot of terrain types, so the overhead will be large, and I think most builders will want to fill up their precious process address space with hand-built areas.

Plus, I think its pretty clear no one wants to have to walk to through randomly generated areas to get to another server. They want to step on the portal and arrive at their destination, so they can get where they are going as quickly as possible. Though, we could simply do random encounters, and leave everything else off-camera... I'm imagining OotS there, "Uh oh, an unnamed area loaded... must have rolled a random encounter! Buff up guys" ;)

Actually, I think the random-encounter-only idea has a lot more merit, since we can pretty much just limit that to overland map travel (ie, between two destinations, so probably all roaded areas), it shouldn't need so much overhead.
Post Reply