How to bring back the people?

[Ithildur]

cap at 13 could be fun imm. still very powerful compared to low levels, but never crazy omnipotent.

unrelated.... but how about when you die or quit forever you can transfer like 20% of your XP to a new charcter?
would make it easier to target the somewhat desired level area of 4-10 or so, and might allow some dead dude to make someone semi capable to join back to his friends in the campigan with a new toon. we usualy allow similar things in PnP.
Just a thought.

Yeah... posting while drunk probably isn't a good idea.

Seriously though, some of us are really getting carried away here; this isn't a campaign tabletop game with 4 players yet.

[Stormbring3r]

Why limit the players.. there are already higher level PC's in ALFA so limiting the ones who have not made it there is a lame reason and will only push people away..

We are trying to get members back instead of PISSING them off.

Our number has dwindles because of bad choices somewhere in the Administration.. I am not pointing fingers at anyone because I know I left the first time because of RL and a friend of mine who was charged by the then admin for playing to much... LMAO.. Really? Playing to Much?? I saw the PM's.. and thats what they said.. But thats niether here nor there..


Put in Ridable Horses.. Put in Ships to Ship combat.. I mean just because its not your idea does not mean its not a good one..

Fix the item stuff.. Make every server compatable.. Nothing like going from server to server and your crap does not work or you cannot sell items because they are not compatable..

1: Start at the CORE and fix the little stuff

2: Start adding existing things that work

3: Add new areas

4: Make custom Content more readily available

5: Work with the players.. not against them..

[SCI-kick]

I'd like to DM, but I never have online. As a player I only have a minor suggestion. If you don't have a grand plot in mind, it's okay. If there is a group of PCs wandering around while you are there, throw something at them. It could be anything.

It seems to me the long campaigns are getting harder for everyone to find the time to be present, so if there happens to be a time when a fun group of players is there, why not give them a challenge? It doesn't need a story , it's Dungeons & Dragons.

That's what the game is about. A DM creating a challenge, whether its a single encounter or more. I think the DMs are great! This is just an idea.

[kid]

Yeah... posting while drunk probably isn't a good idea.

Seriously though, some of us are really getting carried away here; this isn't a campaign tabletop game with 4 players yet.

posting while being a douche is also not the best idea ever.

However if you think lv spread is not a problem in ALFA, or if you have better ideas on how to handle it...
please, let us know.

[t-ice]

Why limit the players..

Exactly. Either we limit players playing together, or we limit the maximum levels their PCs can reach. Seems like a no brainer choice to me. Currently our limiting policy is "reroll once you get bored for not being able to mix with others". But yeah, I do think levels per xp should then be slowed as well, so that if the cap is at 13, it takes as much as standard lvl16 or so xp to get there.

But all the levels are still likely a smaller problem than better organizing gametimes, and concolidating the IC geographic spread.

[Blindhamsterman]

Or we don't add in level caps? In fairness, this isn't pnp, nor will it ever be. My level 11 managed to play alongside much lower levels and I highly doubt has ever really been close to overpowered compared to the group.

I've provided some suggestions on other ways to try things, level caps will most definitely see a bunch of folk leaving, especially those that are either over the suggested cap or close to it and find their plans just fell apart.

Still, if Alfa wants to push away more people, by all means go for it.

Should look at positive ways to resolve issues, not negative ones.

[Dorn]

Without reading many of the last few pages...

I dont think capping levels is a key response to 'How to bring back the people?'.

I cant see it being the centrepiece to an email/a review of the website front page, a post on many forums etc that would be done in an effort to reach and recruit those 'people'.

Not that it doesn't have merit (although i personally dont think so), but perhaps we could focus on a more relevant strategy to reach 15 pages on.

[t-ice]

I cant see it being the centrepiece to an email/a review of the website front page, a post on many forums etc that would be done in an effort to reach and recruit those 'people'

True enough. But you're talking about marketing, to get the word out. Unfortunately you can have the glitziest chrome nobbles and eye-popping ads that'll attract people to come in and take a look. But if under the glitzy recruitment bullet points the core product rots, it matters zero. Because unless we get people to play together then ALFA is a rotten game compared to the thousands out there.

perhaps we could focus on a more relevant strategy to reach 15 pages on.

Yep, so what's yours? With the numbers I'm seeing at ALFA at the moment, that means that if there's two people logged in to ALFA, it should be at least 50% likely they can meaningfully play together. Right now I'd estimate the number somewhere near 20%. Breaking it down I see the reasons as:

1) IC-geographic split
2) Level split

Do we agree there? If not, what's keeping you from getting IG?
If you agree, and if you don't like tweaking with how we assign DnD levels to PCs, or to consolidate the field of servers, then how would you improve on these points?

How do you think it could be done? Because "stick to your guns" certainly isn't working.

(Take this all with the caveat that this is the euro-centric view, maybe there's somewhat more players at US timezones)

[kevashna]

The allowance of multiple characters per player (something that seems to be in the works) is a step in the right direction. Playing a level 1 character when everyone else is leaps and bounds ahead of you in terms of experience and equipment is Not Fun and was the main reason I gave up the last time I played on ALFA. So hopefully there will be more new characters running around to actually do things with. And I don't care about those instances in DM plots where the lowbie saved the day or had a significant effect on the outcome of things--I like to think I've spent way too much time here over the years, and the vast majority of that experience was spent outside the purview of a DM. If that's a problem the administration should genuinely consider doing what Cloud Dancing proposed on page 1 and toss the whole "persistent world" thing out the door.

I also agree with the posters that suggested a raise in the minimum level to two (or even three, gasp). D&D 3.5 at level 1 is a cruel joke in any sort of persistent world setting.

A not-insignificant portion of this problem can be attributed to the fact that NWN2 is, frankly, on its deathbed. The hardcore RP community even more so. I don't know of any easy solutions to that. What others have suggested about going to offsite forums and advertising is a good idea, after the necessary changes have been implemented.

[Dorn]

I cant see it being the centrepiece to an email/a review of the website front page, a post on many forums etc that would be done in an effort to reach and recruit those 'people'

True enough. But you're talking about marketing, to get the word out. Unfortunately you can have the glitziest chrome nobbles and eye-popping ads that'll attract people to come in and take a look. But if under the glitzy recruitment bullet points the core product rots, it matters zero. Because unless we get people to play together then ALFA is a rotten game compared to the thousands out there.

perhaps we could focus on a more relevant strategy to reach 15 pages on.

Yep, so what's yours? With the numbers I'm seeing at ALFA at the moment, that means that if there's two people logged in to ALFA, it should be at least 50% likely they can meaningfully play together. Right now I'd estimate the number somewhere near 20%. Breaking it down I see the reasons as:

1) IC-geographic split
2) Level split

Do we agree there? If not, what's keeping you from getting IG?
If you agree, and if you don't like tweaking with how we assign DnD levels to PCs, or to consolidate the field of servers, then how would you improve on these points?

How do you think it could be done? Because "stick to your guns" certainly isn't working.

(Take this all with the caveat that this is the euro-centric view, maybe there's somewhat more players at US timezones)

"What's yours?" My suggestions were here on top of some other ideas posted: http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpBB3/view ... 12#p582712
"Whats keeping yo frm getting in game" 2 kids under 3years old + 2 jobs + moving house and having to do most of the handiman work + not get divorced.

I dontt hink level splits that big an issue.

I play in the west australian timezone. In with korea and china. Normally the least populated timezone. So i can talk with some authority of 'limited player numbers' as it's the norm even when the euro/US times have been pumping.

[Veilan]

Instead of a cap, we could just divide xp gains from (repeatable) statics by level of character.

Y'know... diminishing returns without epic math involved.

Chers,

[kid]

we could and shoud. regardless. whatever. you're all mooks. why do I even bother talking to you.

[t-ice]

Instead of a cap, we could just divide xp gains from (repeatable) statics by level of character.

In this vein, we might also re-visit the combat xp giving logic. I don't believe it's an incentive, but it could do it's own (small) part in narrowing leveling differences. Now I didn't write the piece, but I am under the impression the combat xp for a kill by a party is given based on the level of the highest level PC in the party, and then divided according to levels (so a lvl1 and a lvl10 would see the lvl10 getting 10 times more). The logic was to discourage power-leveling lowbies by their highby (OoC) friends. Rather we might want a system that doesn't give more to highbies than to lowbies in a mixed party, but vice versa.

[Blindhamsterman]

Instead of a cap, we could just divide xp gains from (repeatable) statics by level of character.

In this vein, we might also re-visit the combat xp giving logic. I don't believe it's an incentive, but it could do it's own (small) part in narrowing leveling differences. Now I didn't write the piece, but I am under the impression the combat xp for a kill by a party is given based on the level of the highest level PC in the party, and then divided according to levels (so a lvl1 and a lvl10 would see the lvl10 getting 10 times more). The logic was to discourage power-leveling lowbies by their highby (OoC) friends. Rather we might want a system that doesn't give more to highbies than to lowbies in a mixed party, but vice versa.

I'd suggest making all xp higher than it is from low level combat, and yeah making low levels get better xp from you challenges (so long as they actually contributed) would be great

[danielmn]

simple. Spend all the time it took to post every one of these postings, and put that time toward something tangibly beneficial, like getting horses IG, or getting OAS up and lurching.

Words. Words words words words words. words words words.


ACTION