Cloakwood Mines...in its entirety

[Steve]

...was the best build low level dungeon on this Server, in my opinion. It not only served multiply levels of adventure and RP, but as a great example to other Builders, when it comes to making high level content for BGTSCC.

Was Cloakwood Mines Level 4 so unused, to warrant removal? Could it perhaps be that it instead needed some adjustment to make it even more relevant, than just removing it?

[Ariella]

The cloakwoods mines level 4 was the most taxing area on the server due to it being a very large, heavily prop filled exterior. So yes it was not used enough to warrant the resources required.

[Steve]

I guess then it was all those props that made it so great and contributed to an atmosphere little found in other dungeon areas!

[Young Werther]

Maybe it could get a whole server devoted to it. And connecting to elsewhere... dark.

[TarnishedSoul]

I used it all the time.

[Maecius]

We want to see if the sacrifices improve server stability. If they do, then it clearly tells us what was behind the crashing and stability problems.

We maybe took a big bite out of the server, but this is the best way to judge the effectiveness of the sacrifices.

None of the maps were thrown in the trash, so there's a possibility we can add maps back incrementally. Or introduce new, never-before-seen maps. Whichever people think would be the most fun for them.

But first, it is important for us to see if this resolves some of our issues. Because we really think the module just got too big for the engine to handle it.

[mrm3ntalist]

There is no area that is not used at all. Someone will miss whichever area gets removed. However, the server seems much more stable and the 9 hour reset was put back on after many months.

If this improves stability we can see what can be done about the removed areas. It seems though that - at the moment - something had to go

[Steve]

So...did I just miss the pre-removal memo about WHY areas were being removed?

I mean, I TOTALLY understand doing this, especially in the context of Server stability. However, maybe it was just me, but I did not see a public "this is coming up" post, which allowed the general Community to prepare to maybe see one or two or even three of their favorite Areas removed.

[Steve]

Or introduce new, never-before-seen maps. Whichever people think would be the most fun for them.

Which is great and I'm sure everyone looks forward to new content. Is that in the works currently?

[Lockonnow]

I just wondering why the lvl 4 was not a water area that wil have been more cool

[chad878262]

So...did I just miss the pre-removal memo about WHY areas were being removed?

I mean, I TOTALLY understand doing this, especially in the context of Server stability. However, maybe it was just me, but I did not see a public "this is coming up" post, which allowed the general Community to prepare to maybe see one or two or even three of their favorite Areas removed.

It has been stated in many threads over the past several months that staff was looking in to areas to be removed for improved server stability. However, it was never posted which areas, nor was it stated in advance that the most recent update would remove areas. A shock to all of us for sure, but not one that hasn't been indicated was coming. The specifics weren't released to my knowledge as this was wholly an admin/dev task, but I don't think community input would have changed anything, since it was really just a matter of which areas were most resource intensive.

[Steve]

It has been stated in many threads over the past several months that staff was looking in to areas to be removed for improved server stability.

It has? Non-QC or Dev sections of the Forums?

However, it was never posted which areas, nor was it stated in advance that the most recent update would remove areas. A shock to all of us for sure, but not one that hasn't been indicated was coming. The specifics weren't released to my knowledge as this was wholly an admin/dev task, but I don't think community input would have changed anything, since it was really just a matter of which areas were most resource intensive.

That's right: given no choice, input doesn't matter.

Given the choice, is stability or "favorite" Areas more important? I'd agree to the latter former.

Maybe I simply like the idea that, given any Area removed would disappoint someone, the actual event of doing the removal could have been expressed beforehand. Does it matter really, in the end? I guess not, considering this being an admin/dev decision.

But you know...Community, right?

[Rhifox]

It has been stated in many threads over the past several months that staff was looking in to areas to be removed for improved server stability.

It has? Non-QC or Dev sections of the Forums?

Yes. You posted in it, even.

viewtopic.php?p=705033#p705033


Admittedly, there wasn't an announcement of 'we are removing these areas in this patch on this specific day', which would have been nice to have.

[Steve]

Yep, you got me: I posted in that thread! Lol.

But just as much talk was said by Staff with reducing props in Areas and splitting the Server, as to wholly removing Areas.

[Theodore01]

So is the entire back-way from BG to Nashkel gone, then?

Are there any areas that allow foraging, especially for bait, now that the east river map was removed?

Are new areas replacing these, especially the one in the OP, being a relatively necessary leveling area?

I realize this will never be a democracy, but how were these areas chosen? It seems to me that if areas are to be cut they could be less impactful to the majority if UD areas were removed, or unused guild areas, or some of DM only maps.

DM maps were already removed in the first cut--Almost half of them. They've already made all the sacrifice I can feasibly ask them to make if we plan to keep any DM maps at all.

We can try to add some foraging spots to other places, but the areas were chosen based on too many factors to feasibly even try to explain at this point, and definitely not based on "the most used maps are the ones that get kept." Factors included a handful of internal discussions regarding how many players would be disenfranchised the least by the removal of a given map, what effected the ease of leveling the least, which maps were needless because everything on them can be moved to other places, and the list goes on.

At the end of the day I had to weigh feedback from multiple dozens of different sources and just had to pretty much use that feedback to wing the decision and do what I thought was best. One thing I've learned about this issue after spending the last months preparing is that there's no one that agrees on anything about which maps are the most important ones to keep. For every group that wants one map removed there's another group of players who feel like it's literally the worst map you could possibly remove from the game.

We were able to turn the reset timer back up to 9 hours thanks to the stability this trim has provided the module and we've been 16 hours total now without a crash of any kind. Once we get all the transitions reworked and everything finalized we can focus on what is missing as a result and how we can work that in at other places.

As an example, the lighthouse, the boat, and the cave from the Coast South of CK can just be added to a small beach at the bottom of the Lion's Way map and provide literally exactly the same function that the entire coastal map did (minus the Fire Beetles, which can again, be put literally anywhere in the entire module).

The Chionthar river map was taken out in favor of keeping the newer map with the wolves/bandits and the goblin ruins because it's the de facto "level 1" hunting ground now if your starting PC isn't strong enough to go straight to the graveyard and because all the map served to do was provide a means to travel between areas that are actually relevant. The one exception is that occasionally people will use area as a secluded place to RP in the wilderness, and again, this can be accomplished with the addition of small spawn-free forested areas added to Uldoon's Trail or even the Goblin Ruin map, rather than having a big huge empty space to facilitate the RP of 2 (or a small group) players.

Though I get where you're coming from with the foraging spots, as this adds to the RP of characters who live in the wild as opposed to an urban setting, and we will definitely try to work these and some alchemy spots into another map instead (perhaps the river area leading up into Ulgoth's Beard?).