Shrinking the module - removing areas

[sir_blacksoutalot]

Even though there seem to be some underused areas, I personally feel there's a certain value to the "perceived vastness" of the server. My fear is that starting to remove areas may make it feel much more confined.

And though perhaps a valid solution, I've never been a big fan of overland maps. Just seems to kill the immersion factor.

So I'd throw down in the camp of first exploring the possibility of splitting the servers. The idea of splitting the surface from UD seems to have the most merit. Looking forward to hearing which direction this all goes.

[Side]

Splitting the UD and Surface does have a little merit, but it would only postpone the issue for the surface server. I'm no expert on this, but from personal assumptions and hearing others talk over the years the UD maps don't appear to be that resource heavy, where as there are quite a few surface ones that are.

The only reason I'd really be for the split is if we wanted to make the UD as large as the surface, which considering the population difference wouldn't be the best of ideas. I don't really see it having a large enough impact if we were going to do it for server performance reasons.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

Correct, it's very minimal in it's impact, sans Sshamath proper. We won't split the community on basis of where an area is located, as demonstrated, the server can still cap out with a surface event alone.

[Stonebar]

While I respect your opinion 7threalm there's also the proportion of usable space vs. memory of any area to factor in as well. It's also note worthy that the Reaching wood's frame rate (number measuring Lag) is that of a much smaller combat area, lower then many RP areas, and even half that of a place like Kraak Helzak for example. I'm sure every area will be considered, and if the Reaching woods is on the chopping block so be it. That will be up to the Dev and server administrators.

it would be a really cool experiment to shut down the surface for a month.

This would finally make me roll that Duergar I've wanted for almost 10 years now. A Mobster type "it's not personal but...*insert bad thing happens here*"


I'd hate to see two servers for the main reason of population visibility. People need to see a thriving server, so RPer, Grinder, and all in-between improves this. I picked my first server because it had the most players, at the time I adequated that as a better server because so many people were there. I've seen a surprising influx of players for a game this old recently, and I wonder how many of them would have bothered with a less populated looking game. Numbers make a great advertisement.

[7threalm]

I dont know the tree count, just saw alot of trees . The area does look good

Kh just needs the npc count lowered, or the heartbeat scripts removed....to much copy/pasta

as far as the ud splitting thats not gonna change much the underdark is mostly interior areas so they "damage" is a lot less then "exteriors"

also remember there are a ton of dm area exteriors, but not sure what their condiction is, might be worth checking them out.

also I do like the new areas, and some people do like to explore..not wait around at the fai to be ported to a dm area.

[dedude]

We won't split the community on basis of where an area is located, as demonstrated, the server can still cap out with a surface event alone.

Well that is a flaw of the engine that we never will be able to overcome. But it can be mitigated somewhat with a split. If the larger dungeons/adventures are moved to a separate server, then players that go adventuring there wont be impacted when 30 people sit around FAI chatting or bartering or whatever. It also gives people an opportunity to travel to areas on the other server, when an event (DM or otherwise) is taking place on one of the servers.

The two servers should obviously be connected in some way. So that you take a boat or caravan or portal or whatever to a location, which then prompts you to login to the other server. This obviously requires that character save locations be fixed, so you can't just log in to the server you wish to. It's pretty immersion breaking currently that every 4-5 hours you port from anywhere in the world to the starting locations.

[aaron22]

i agree with all points of stonebar.

Kraak Helzak need to be looked at. Something happens whenever i go there.

and i too picked this server because it had the highest population. displaying a smaller number could defiantly effect the recovery from the turnover.

[dedude]

I think people are able to look at the server list and conclude that:

"BGtscc server 1 - 50 players"
"BGtscc server 2 - 25 players"

means that BGtscc has 75 online players

The list of populated RP servers is not overwhelming.

[aaron22]

IIRC when i was selecting the server the list i looked at had about 25 servers on it. the 50 number server would have put BGtSCC#1 at or near the top of that list while the one that would be 25 would be further down on the list. that separation would hide the actual total server population in the list.

its just a thought. something to consider.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

The same module base would be kept across both servers. Limiting the availability of an area due to an event or a connecting area would not bode well, it's pretty safe to say if there are two game servers, they will mirror one another, especially where saved locations is concerned.

One thought is that the second server would come online if the cap of the first server hits and persists at a lower number.

Players represented in social areas in Server 1 or 2, would be visible, in the other, as well as communication freely flowing, fairly transparent sans a new tell system would need to be introduced for private cross server discussions.

[dedude]

The same module base would be kept across both servers. Limiting the availability of an area due to an event or a connecting area would not bode well

I'm not sure what you mean by limiting the availability of an area. Splitting the areas up would just mean that some area transitions would lead to the other server.

So as an example, BG is on server1 and Roaringshore on server2. You take a ship from BG, select Roaringshore as destination, your saved location is set to Roaringshore and you are then prompted to log on to server2. When you do, you start in Roaringshore.

It may not be the direction you wish to take bgtscc, but I'm arguing for it because I have seen it work very well, and it would allow a greater number of areas for the server, as well as more players online.

[Blackman D]

just throwing this out there... but there are already two servers and actively using both has been tried and ultimately wasnt worth it

bringing it up when the first was capped has been done, but you end up with a full server and a one with little people on it, even when they said the second one was up and people jumped over and both sorta balance out you still end up with people on one server wanting to interact with the people on the other but now cant

bringing it up for events was tried but then you have people complain they missed the event because they didnt realize it was on the other server, or complain they simply felt left out because even if they werent apart of it they still wanted to hear what was going on before or after and now cant

but point being you would be basically asking for a third server because now the second server is used for testing things and is brought up as needed for that so things (hopefully) dont instantly crash the main server as soon as its added

not saying it couldnt go back to being a non test server tho, but i think using it as another playable server would simply repeat things that already happened

[Tantive]

In my opinion, map transitions are a better seperation from one server to the next. Crashes may still happen, but presently we are looking to cut content while what we really want is keeping and adding to content instead. I believe it is possible to switch server without ever having to visit server list.

[dedude]

The module is nearing critical size, and the server is often maxed out on players. Maybe having a full server only for testing is a bit of a luxury. If I had that for all my projects at work I would be a happy developer

[Blackman D]

well the second server is offline the vast majority of the time, when a lot of things are finished but need to be tested, if a lot of things need to be tested, the server is brought up for a few days to do it

but it has to be patched same as the main server which takes a while because it goes longer without updates so its not as if its constantly used as well, there is still the cost issue of running two servers