Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

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

I would disagree. We need to get back to a stable base. Once there, we can start looking at bringing back areas, maybe optimize them a bit, and if needed expand the server to a dual server setup. It's a process, and it will take time.

Yeah, Theodore01, I read what you quoted. It was posted after the fact, and as I've said I recognize Staff saying there is no perfect way or answer to removing areas for everyone—maybe even anyone—there still could be "better" ways to enact the change.

For example: OOC let everyone know beforehand, so maybe some could visit those Areas one last time. Or, IC, ask a DM(s) to run a small event that culminates in a cave collapse, or a tidal wave, in which our Characters have reason to know why those well used and maybe Character defining areas are now unavailable.

The module is developed, hosted, provided, as-is, with no guarantees. Decisions are weighted on a lot of factors but sometimes necessity takes the reins, especially as we had more than ten resets the day it was implemented. We don't like removing things that had time invested for the module, but at least it's recovery is available should/when new changes come along.

Steve wrote:Yeah, Theodore01, I read what you quoted. It was posted after the fact, and as I've said I recognize Staff saying there is no perfect way or answer to removing areas for everyone—maybe even anyone—there still could be "better" ways to enact the change.

For example: OOC let everyone know beforehand, so maybe some could visit those Areas one last time. Or, IC, ask a DM(s) to run a small event that culminates in a cave collapse, or a tidal wave, in which our Characters have reason to know why those well used and maybe Character defining areas are now unavailable.

Steve while I like the IC ideas you give and of course a note prior to the change would have been nice. I think the devs needed to take action rather quickly so they probably didn't have time to make an event out of it.

K'yon Oblodra wrote:

Steve wrote:Yeah, Theodore01, I read what you quoted. It was posted after the fact, and as I've said I recognize Staff saying there is no perfect way or answer to removing areas for everyone—maybe even anyone—there still could be "better" ways to enact the change.

For example: OOC let everyone know beforehand, so maybe some could visit those Areas one last time. Or, IC, ask a DM(s) to run a small event that culminates in a cave collapse, or a tidal wave, in which our Characters have reason to know why those well used and maybe Character defining areas are now unavailable.

Steve while I like the IC ideas you give and of course a note prior to the change would have been nice. I think the devs needed to take action rather quickly so they probably didn't have time to make an event out of it.

Well, if it was an emergency, okay, let's say that 30 seconds before.

But then, people like Chad are saying this Area Removal was in the works for months...even Theo's quote of Endelyon shows that!

So honestly, I don't know what to think anymore. Carry on brothers and sisters, carry on....

I don't know how long it took ad none of this was in the purview of QC, just making assumptions based on the fact that comments on removing areas have been made in previous months.

A decision like this probably wouldn't reach QC, given the limited scope of available tools to their disposal. Just as there's no guarantee at what is implemented, there's no guarantee that what's removed stays gone.

I wasn't saying QC should have been involved by any means, has nothing to do with us. Was just commenting on my previous statement with regard to it being in the works for months. I didn't want it to be unclear that it was just an assumption I made and not a staff level comment, that's all.

Aspect of Sorrow wrote:

So you're visually communicating that Area removal is no big deal?

Contextually the posts having issue with the area removals.

Just as there's no guarantee at what is implemented, there's no guarantee that what's removed stays gone.

Any chance the cave under the waterfall with the lizardmen getting another entrance?

Aspect of Sorrow wrote:Contextually the posts having issue with the area removals.

Just as there's no guarantee at what is implemented, there's no guarantee that what's removed stays gone.

I like what you guys do and crashes annoy the shit out of me. So I am certainly for stability, still Steve has a point although I don't like how he brings it across.

So if there is time for it it would be a great thing to announce these kind of changes and maybe even give your DMs a chance, if they wish to do so, to play some cataclysmic events. Although not sure that is something to consider.

Aspect of Sorrow wrote:Contextually the posts having issue with the area removals.

Just as there's no guarantee at what is implemented, there's no guarantee that what's removed stays gone.

That's like saying nothing!

Fine.

K'yon Oblodra wrote:So if there is time for it it would be a great thing to announce these kind of changes and maybe even give your DMs a chance, if they wish to do so, to play some cataclysmic events. Although not sure that is something to consider.

If the areas are positioned to make a return, having a cataclysmic event doesn't make much sense.

Nine hour resets, minimal crashing. Honestly removing the fourth level of the cloakwood mine dungeon was probably the wisest choice of anything that should be removed to provide stability to the server. No quests related, dead end, minimal use, edge of the server map. Plus it was one of the heaviest maps on the server, top 10.

I wouldn't mind seeing it reworked as a proper interior down the road. Perhaps link in more upperdark to it. In lore there's an exit from the Underdark near Greenfields / Woods of Sharp Teeth transition. Interior maps are a so much smaller, to a phenomenal level. I honestly think it's the best way forward given what we've experienced with module size.