Downsize?

[Mord]

The point is to have a higher player density on the non-campaign servers.

[Ronan]

How does it work in terms of players travelling between servers? Would it be considered acceptable to server hop between these servers and your home server for DMed events? The name would indicate that's what their purpose would be, but a lot of people object to that kind of behaviour. If not, then what's the point of them?

Its just a way of funneling players and DMs towards active servers without actually cutting inactive servers or ruining any campaigns. It also serves as a barrier for dead servers to be revived without significant effort (what Miz and Twig did with DD would be significant effort, for example).

It was my idea, but don't get me wrong. As fluff's sig states, I don't like it at all. I think its inelegant and a poor crutch for giving players the freedom and information they need to make choices for themselves. I do think its better than the current state of afairs, though I do hate any removal of choice from a player's hands (which this does do, to a degree). Obviously there was/is some barrier of information and organization keeping the player and DM base from achieving an acceptable distribution, so maybe this is needed.

Its a shame vault connections are such a PITA, or the definition of an ALFA "server" could blur to the point where DMs could host mods specifically for their campaign location relatively frequently. This would sort of be my ideal NWN2 plan: DMs would be free to DM on whatever mod they wanted, provided ALFA's standards would be upheld. Only mods with suffecient content would actually be used as live ad-hoc servers, though.

[NickD]

The point is to have a higher player density on the non-campaign servers.

But why make them campaign servers instead of just dropping them? If they're only used for DMed events, and it's still bad to go to a server just for a DMed event.... What's the point, really?

[Mord]

There are degrees of hopping between servers of course, if you have a weekly scheduled session on the campaign server in question and you are on a non-campaign server there really isnt a problem with you travelling to said campaign server for the session and back again afterwards. What I thought you meant was unrestricted travel between the non-campaign servers since you have the option of skipping the campaign ones. My mistake.

[Ronan]

The point is to have a higher player density on the non-campaign servers.

But why make them campaign servers instead of just dropping them? If they're only used for DMed events, and it's still bad to go to a server just for a DMed event.... What's the point, really?

Well, one would hope a DM on said server wouldn't insist that his PCs not be able to leave ICly until the next session a week later.

[Rick7475]

The point is to have a higher player density on the non-campaign servers.

But why make them campaign servers instead of just dropping them? If they're only used for DMed events, and it's still bad to go to a server just for a DMed event.... What's the point, really?

That isn't the definition of a campaign, least in my book. A campaign is a DM and several players who consistently play on a periodic basis. The DM know who the players are and over a period of time they play on a regular basis.

For example, if I were to run a Mosque of Tyr campaign, the players would join the Mosque over a period of a few sessions of training. Then they would become members gradually increasing in levels and rank as the adventures continue over a period of months.

You can't simply parachute in that campaign, nor is it a 'DM event'. It is more than a DM event. The DM knows and works with the players and the players don't wander all over ALFA because they are committed to the plot and location they are in. It would not make IC sense for a Mosque of Tyr Guardman to suddenly pop over to Sembia and play there for a few days (with his Mosque equipment, title, badge, etc) and then a week later pop back to the Mosque and play on the shceduled campaign.

The same with the DF militia. You make a committment. If you desert the militia after you make the contract, the PC will be executed (and I have executed PC's for doing this). After your committment you can request a leave of absence. A campaign is not just a DM event, and the DM knows the players. Players have to be committed to that campaign and the DM will know if they have been wandering around breaking IC RP'ing. Likewise, a new player cannot simply join a campaign in progress unless he/she committes to the campaign rules.


A campaign server would fit this nicely.

[NickD]

So.... the players don't really have anything to do in between each session while they're on the campaign server and can't travel to interact with others?

I don't really like the sound of that... if the DM or enough players can't make it for one weekly session, that's 2 weeks a player is trapped on that server with nothing to do...



>> Time to bring up my 2 PC (live and campaign PCs!) suggestion again! <<

[Rick7475]

Actually, I voted against, but now I would like to change my vote simply because I want to DM right now and I can't DM anywhere. If servers were more open to allowing more DM's, then I know that I would go there and DM.

In the mean time I guess I'll go read a book ...

[Dorn]

Why are the people who voted "yes" so shy? Hmph.

I haven't voted yet.

I voted yes.

If this was the way the poll has been phrased then it's my closest answer.

For all the arguments about effective or not, i see it as a matter of sinmple maths.

Reduce some servers, some DMs will stop DMing, some love DMing and will move (ie SPider) increasing DM numbers on the remaining servers.

Reduce servers and some (very few!) players will stop playing. Most will move to other servers improving numbers there hopefully to levels of about 2 years ago.

Reduce servers and the new players are less spread out and can form groups of their own.

As for it being worthwile now or not with NWN2 6 months away. Well i'll be half a year older...not that short a time. And with numbers dropping i find it facinating why this ISN'T the time to do this. Maintaining numbers into NWN2 is essential especially as many other PWs will begoing live before us to carve into some of the community. And there are many more FR based RP PWs out there this time.

As for implementation the pole above gives no reference to this so is partially ineffective but useful in guaging general standpoints i guess. The campaign server idea has merit, along with voluntary removal.

As for where? I would suggest areas such as TFN, BG, SD, TSM, NC/Arabel are considered for campaign server or something. They all neighbour well numbered servers and could offer great adventure potential when strong parties and DM teams can tread those paths. But this is just a view based on my percieved understanding of where there is activity and not so much on evidence. Someone mentioned logs i think if we wanted an unbiased viewpoint probably better. I just figure noone says where so i'd throw some thoughts forward.

Some people will disagree with me on the above. Dont bother as i've seen the arguments and they just don't seem overly rational to me (maybe i'm too much of a maths type)...but then thats the same as you dont buy mine. We just have to agree to disagree. But you asked my opininons so *shrugs*

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't really see much changing in terms of player numbers if we drop servers at this point. The players are already concentrated on a small number of servers, the dead and empty servers are already empty save for a few stalwarts who most either won't move or have reasons not to move.

[Mord]

I don't really see much changing in terms of player numbers if we drop servers at this point. The players are already concentrated on a small number of servers, the dead and empty servers are already empty save for a few stalwarts who most either won't move or have reasons not to move.

And making those servers campaign only will serve to herd new players to the more popular servers without sacrificing these few faithful players.

[NESchampion]

I like the campaign server idea, so I voted yes; might need a new poll with that option though.

[darrenhfx]

I voted no because I don't want to see server numbers cut at this point... the campaign server idea I'm still thinking about.