Server proximity

[MorbidKate]

Since Proximity has been soundly beaten in this poll I'd hope we can move on to more logical solutions to "RP" travel keeping in mind that not every member can spare extreme hours of online time each week to get around if a server dries up for their time slot.

I voted no because I don't ever want to be in a situation where we turn down server applicants just because the region they want to build is "Too far" from what's currently Live. I want diversity within FAERUN, not just a slice of the western edge. I came here because ALFAs mission statement was to re-create Faerun so the least we can do is create as wide a sampling of it's regions as possible. Or are we now ignoring that tidbid of the charter?

Kate

[Ronan]

I came here because ALFAs mission statement was to re-create Faerun so the least we can do is create as wide a sampling of it's regions as possible. Or are we now ignoring that tidbid of the charter?

Kate

Given that that piece of the charter is utterly impossible, I don't see how its violated any more if we choose to create 3 regions in larger detail or 10 smaller ones. Its all what people want to do and what pleases our player-base the most. I don't think we'll really know for sure until the first batch of servers are out, when we might see some people proposing for neighboring servers in order to flesh out a region not hostable on a single machine with 4 gigs of ram. Or we might not. But I don't think we'll see people purposefully make smaller servers in order to spread more little pieces of ALFA across Faerun.

[Electryc]

I agree with Kate. We dont need the closest regions, we need the best built regions out there for start up. I voted a big ol NO.

[Ronan]

I suppose I (or fluff) should have spelled it out more clearly in the wording, but the poll wasn't about choosing closer servers over better ones at all.

In any case, I'm wondering what people's opinions are about sacrificing better proposals for diversity (which is currently in the plans) or content for all levels (which I think is oddly missing? can't remember). Most people seem to say they prefer the best proposals regardless of anything else.

[Audark]

Most people seem to say they prefer the best proposals regardless of anything else.

Exactly.

If this is not the case, then those setting forth proposals have been horribly misled. They were given criteria they would be judged on, and that is what they should be judged on. If at the onset of accepting server proposals it was made clear that proximity was a prerequisite for acceptance, then there would have been more of an effort to that end. But as it stands with the proposals as they are, and fine looking proposals at that, I would argue vehemntly against judging them on any aspect not laid out prior to server proposals beign accepted.

The best proposals are just that, the best proposals, and they should be given the green light based on the criteria already set forth.

[Inaubryn]

Okay, I've tried to tell y'all and so has Ronan and I think others have too. The proximity thing was not and never was intended as a prerequisite for acceptance of a proposal. Nowhere was that stated. Proposals were and are goin' to be accepted based on merit. The end. And diversity was never compromised nor was it at risk of bein' so. That bein' said, it's moot now.

[Ronan]

If this is not the case, then those setting forth proposals have been horribly misled.

No, I think they just need to read the NWN2 guidelines:

1. #1 Starting Server: Surface – Metropolis (starting build containing a city designated as "Metropolis" by the FRCS);
2. #2 Starting Server: Surface – Rural, Wilderness, Any (starting build containing any large wilderness area (forest/mountain range/desert/ocean) where non-urban PCs may find a home);
3. #3 Starting Server: Underdark (starting build containing Underdark playing areas);

The best proposals aren't being selected; the best proposals of each "type" are. If the best 3 servers are Rural only, only one will be selected. Or, if the best proposal is an urban, and then another, better, urban server gets proposed the day before the review starts, the now-2nd-best server is tossed out. If anyone find this too cruel, maybe they should consider opening up initial building for ALFA2.

The design of the whole must come before the needs of the parts, no matter how much the parts complain (though the relationship is endlessly recursive, if you get my meaning). I don't think its spelled out in the guidelines, but do you think the server selection team would approve the best 5 servers if those best 5 servers were only suitable for levels 7+? I sure hope not. Selecting the best servers without regard to how they fit together would be utterly negligent and moronic in the extreme. Fortunately, I don't think everything has to be spelled out in the guidelines for the server selection team to take it into account, and a bit of common sense goes a long way.

Distance is no different, only its desired effect is in question. It seems like no one wants travel to have a significant in-game effect, so its effectively moot as this poll has proved. But if the community suddenly has a change of "heart" similar to what happened around the time of Khondar's and Hazel's banning, that may change.

[Audark]

I support the terrain diversity clause, because it is necessary to encompass all classes and types of PCs in ALFA2 live. I realize this contradicts myself to some degree, but while my dislike of the proximity idea was based on my feelings that it would engender mistrust within the community, my feelings on terrain diversity are simply that of a player who loves to play rangers and druids, and would be heartbroken if there were no forests in the first live servers.

My opposition here was mainly because I saw proximity as something divisive within the community when there was no cause for it to be such. Travel is something we can handle one way or another, but another divide in teh community over such a small statement is not somethign I want to see, so I wished rather for the proximity clause to be removed, or at least reworded. Inaubryn has been clear, and I trust that, so I've no further reason to post in this discussion.

[MorbidKate]

Hmmm, so... if someone did an excellent proposal to build Calimshan, Thay or some other distant region that it would be equally considered to go Live as soon as it was ready or would it be delayed for a year or more until other servers went Live to narrow the distance?? Assuming we didn't have too many servers by then

Would any build team want to be held back for that much time even though it was done and ready to go and run the risk that too many servers may go up before it's close enough to be within acceptable IC range to go? That's the point I'm trying to make.

Nobody expects to build all of Faerun so the closest we can come to the charter is to provide the best selection of Regions from across the continent. Proximity simply means we'll never see some of the best regions Faerun has to offer because too many servers may go online before it considered close enough to satisfy a few hard core people.

Listen to the Membership and drop the demand for proximity.

Kate

[Inaubryn]

Listen to the Membership and drop the demand for proximity.

Kate

Kate, I'm gonna say this again and hopefully it's clear this time. I realize that may have come off as patronizin' but I'm not tryin' to do that. I've said this like 3 or 4 times now and people are still arguin'. This argument and thread are moot. Because 3 or 4 days ago, I pulled the proximity clause outta the proposal.

Anyway... the reason I'm gonna erase that part of the proposal is A.) or 1.) depending on if you're alphabetical or numerical... we've been on this for 5 pages and it's time to move on to the rest of the proposal. B.) I don't feel strongly enough to push it for another 5 pages. C.) By virtue of the current server proposals, proximity will be a default as will diversity.

[HEEGZ]

I suppose I (or fluff) should have spelled it out more clearly in the wording, but the poll wasn't about choosing closer servers over better ones at all.

In any case, I'm wondering what people's opinions are about sacrificing better proposals for diversity (which is currently in the plans) or content for all levels (which I think is oddly missing? can't remember). Most people seem to say they prefer the best proposals regardless of anything else.

+1 to the best proposals regardless. I think after the first three rural, urban, UD servers are fulfilled any server with high enough quality should go Live. Given the lack of quantity in proposals I think it should work out nicely since not all of the teams are competing to go Live in the first wave anyways.

[Ronan]

Kate, that all became moot about 50 votes ago. I've just got one more thing to say,

I suppose I (or fluff) should have spelled it out more clearly in the wording, but the poll wasn't about choosing closer servers over better ones at all.

In any case, I'm wondering what people's opinions are about sacrificing better proposals for diversity (which is currently in the plans) or content for all levels (which I think is oddly missing? can't remember). Most people seem to say they prefer the best proposals regardless of anything else.

+1 to the best proposals regardless.

I'll come right out and say I won't select the best individual proposals regardless. Never, ever, ever. So you guys might want to do whatever you can to get me off the server selection team. I'm not going to select on proximity, because people don't seem to care about that, but I believe there are many other factors ALFA needs an assortment of, such as content for all levels (though mostly the first few, for initial live servers). I also believe its pretty hard to judge a live server by its application, especially given the burn-out rate involved in bringing a server live, and the number of people on the DM teams who will inevitably be replaced due to unexpected RL issues.

[MorbidKate]

I've said this like 3 or 4 times now and people are still arguin'. This argument and thread are moot. Because 3 or 4 days ago, I pulled the proximity clause outta the proposal.

With folks still debating it and a poll being run on it I must have missed your mention that it was pulled. I'm glad someone here can recognize a bad idea when it's pointed out and make changes for the good of the community.

Thanks.

Kate

[Swift]

In any case, I'm wondering what people's opinions are about sacrificing better proposals for diversity (which is currently in the plans) or content for all levels (which I think is oddly missing? can't remember). Most people seem to say they prefer the best proposals regardless of anything else.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with anything. Any server that goes live within 12-18 months of ALFA's NWN2 live date will have to have low level content, no matter where it is situatied, otherwise they will hum along with 0 players, since it will take some time before anyone gets above low levels.

Especially for servers that get picked to go live first, this is a very moot point, as they simply have no choice but to focus on low level content. Now if someone proposes to do somewhere like Thay or Calishman and dont plan on going live any time soon, fair enough go ahead with no low level content, but to repeatedly state low level content is something you will judge on almost makes it seem as though you think proposal teams have completely forgotten that we all start at square 1 come NWN2

[Fionn]

I took that more as 'how they will handle higher level content'. Currently, we seem to have this paradigm where every server is expected to provide challenge (and loot) for every level - resulting in a steady march towards 20th via combat. We've had many complaints that "it's impossible to level after X". Personally, I see no reason to put in CR10 mobs just because we have PC12 players. We'll see what gets built.