AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Dwagin wrote:

I'm still highly concerned about losing new people that will skip us over. And I've met a fair share of some of the new folk that have gotten a start on Amia, BECAUSE of B being accessible to them since A is always full.

That's what I'd be worried about, too.

My personal opinion on the matter is that I'd like to see Haks on amia, even if it is temporary and only on one server. If you've played on a Hak driven server (A decent one like ravenloft:POTM) you'll know that those servers are pretty incarnate. The amount of content one can get on those servers is awesome. Think horses that do not lag the entire server and don't require a silly feat or skill points for. Also weapons, armor and such which look quite nice. It also allows the introduction of new tilesets and possibly even the ACP styles. Very awesome if you ask me.

The reality is you have old fuddy duddies from a by-gone time who want to stick to no Haks, even to just test it out. It also has some valid arguments as well, such as it driving away the new players, and making Tormaks head explode.

So yea.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

If you've played on a Hak driven server

I've not many. Why? Because I'd have to download crap before I can even try it.

Yurell wrote:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

If you've played on a Hak driven server

I've not many. Why? Because I'd have to download crap before I can even try it.

I do love it when people quote only a small part of a sentence instead of addressing the whole thing. Makes it sound like I've said something in a way I haven't.

what yurell said is something that others have repeated over and over, that is haks would prevent many great rpers from being able to join our server.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

Yurell wrote:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

If you've played on a Hak driven server

I've not many. Why? Because I'd have to download crap before I can even try it.

I do love it when people quote only a small part of a sentence instead of addressing the whole thing. Makes it sound like I've said something in a way I haven't.

Oh? So you don't want me to just quote the part I'm addressing? I suppose I should have put an ellipsis afterwards, but how does it make it sound like something you didn't say?

Selvec Darkon wrote:

My personal opinion on the matter is that I'd like to see Haks on amia, even if it is temporary and only on one server. If you've played on a Hak driven server (A decent one like ravenloft:POTM) you'll know that those servers are pretty incarnate. The amount of content one can get on those servers is awesome. Think horses that do not lag the entire server and don't require a silly feat or skill points for. Also weapons, armor and such which look quite nice. It also allows the introduction of new tilesets and possibly even the ACP styles. Very awesome if you ask me.

The reality is you have old fuddy duddies from a by-gone time who want to stick to no Haks, even to just test it out. It also has some valid arguments as well, such as it driving away the new players, and making Tormaks explode.

So yea.

I still retained all the sentence structure necessary to address that point, all I did was leave out the 'then' which was superfluous for my argument, and didn't affect yours in the slightest since what I quoted was quite obviously a sentence fragment.

The "A decent one" (enclosed in parenthesis) seems to be a most relevant statement. Means the downloadable content isn't crappy.

Not really, as I would not of tried it regardless of how good the downloadable content was - no being able to test it, I'm not going to know in advance, and I'd rather choose the path of least resistance.

Yurell wrote:

Not really, as I would not of tried it regardless of how good the downloadable content was - no being able to test it, I'm not going to know in advance, and I'd rather choose the path of least resistance.

But that's not really saying anything about what Selvec is trying to get through, which is highlighted by the parts, "pretty incarnate", "very awesome", and "horses that do not lag", most of which you left out btw.

Oh, and how would you know if it was crappy if you didn't test it first?

Magnum Opera wrote:

Yurell wrote:

Not really, as I would not of tried it regardless of how good the downloadable content was - no being able to test it, I'm not going to know in advance, and I'd rather choose the path of least resistance.

But that's not really saying anything about what Selvec is trying to get through, which is highlighted by the parts, "pretty incarnate", "very awesome", and "horses that do not lag", most of which you left out btw.

Oh, and how would you know if it was crappy if you didn't test it first?

I don't, which s central to my argument - it wouldn't matter how brilliant the hak is, I wouldn't even bother spending the twenty minutes to download when I could have tried another server that was hak free. If Amia was converted to haks now, I wouldn't move, but I know when I am searching, the fact that Amia has no has is a good thing.

What I'm disagreeing with is how you used an opinion for haks, and made it seem like it was an opinion against haks. I did mention later it had some viable arguments for not being put on the server. I'd also not call it crap considering that one hak could make Amia look twenty times better then it does. Which I believe is Disco's reason for even asking the question. Also, your situation is very unique Yurell, it's not he average for most Amian players.

Several million years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and Amia was first created as a server, download speeds, caps and such where very slow, and basically globally considered to be such. Now days, having a slow speed internet connection, or a very very low download cap, is considered to be unique, and odd. It's no longer the average situation of a gamer. It's expected these days that to play online, you may need to download something.

From what I'm hearing, and I could be wrong here, Disco seems to be presenting argument for Haks on B-mia as a "Lets Test it and see how it goes" thing. People scream for change and such, but when it happens, they curl into a ball in a safe corner some place, not wanting to come out and play with the new toys. As it stands, Amia is that kid in the corner with his blanket, and I believe this suggestion is an attempt to remedy to all to complained about "Stagnant state" that Amia is in.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

What I'm disagreeing with is how you used an opinion for haks, and made it seem like it was an opinion against haks.

I would contest that I had done any such thing. I took a sentence out since I didn't meet the 'if' conditional placed and I proceeded to explain why.
My main qualm is not the download time (although that is a nuisance) or the cost (expensive as it is), but the fact that people will not be able to try the server to see if they like it before having to download 'stuff'.

Ah, so that's your point. Stick to that please and don't go calling crappy.

With regards to that, things are certainly different at this point in time. Would you ignore a server that is always on top of the gamespy list all the time? A server that you've heard/read simply praises about? I certainly wouldn't.

Though indeed, hak size would be a definite factor, but IMO server popularity can persuade a person enough to still go for the download, and Amia certainly has more than enough popularity to try so.

And no, I don't attribute Amia's popularity to the no-hak policy. Rather, it's the way rules about how you play are handled. Amia accepts everyone, from powerbuilders to harcore RPers.

How can you resist the love?

I am indiferent, as long as the contents are not heavily graphic, since then I would be unable to play because... my computer is crappy and I cannot afford a new awesome one.

If we are going to try HAKS, it would be awesome to give it a try on those that allow people to dual-wield whips. >_>

The reason I continually come back to Amia. Its a FRIENDLY server, for my machine, my internet plan, and my mental state.

Slow connections are a myth and small quotas are a crime.

We could move on with the times.

Silvarus wrote:

Slow connections are a myth and small quotas are a crime.

We could move on with the times.

Convince the Australia Government that, with a population density sparser than Russia .... putting high-speed internet is definitely not easy across an entire continent with low population / population density.

As I recall in previous mentions of it, haks by themselves won't necessarily lag or cause trouble with relatively slow connections but rather the content itself.

I'm more than inclined to believe that Disco and others who would be responsible for said haks would always take into consideration the plight of those with connection speed issues.

Yurell wrote:

Convince the Australia Government that, with a population density sparser than Russia .... putting high-speed internet is definitely not easy across an entire continent with low population / population density.

How fast is your connection?

Which way? Upload or download?

My issues with haks are twofold:

1) If you put them on B but not A, well congratulations.....here we are going to all this effort to convince people there's no difference, and Amia is Amia, regardless whether A or B....and now we're talking about literally making that NOT the case? Rather hypocritical. We add haks and it becomes not Amia, or A-mia and B-mia, or even A-mia and Boss-mia. It'd become Amia and Hakmia. No thanks.

2) Look at all the questions and concerns in the head pak thread alone. Look at the number of new threads that pop up saying "Why do I see people with no heads"? OBVIOUSLY people are coming to play without the need to download. At least as it is, they CAN get in and play without teh OPTIONAL downloads like heads, hands, portraits. Not teh case with Haks. And yet, with teh all these threads, all these questions, people still think that it's not a big deal?

It is. We do perfectly good without haks. Disco does amazing things with the plc's we have. I like to think that my zones are attracting and interesting without haks. While they *might* bring some benefit...I think we stand to lose more than we stand to gain.

I'm honestly trying to think of any additions that you could make to one server without doing to the other, without making some sort of issue.

We can't fix the main thing that people want touched; which is mechanical / balance factors. These sorts of things would need to be done on both servers. It simply seems mechanically formed to have one set of NWN mechanics on Amia, and another on BMia.

Cosmetic things such as appearances, armors, heads, etc; again, you could use them on Amia B but if that player went to Amia A you'd end up with invisible or bugged PCs. Again, seems silly to have that sort of differentiation.

Which leaves, at most, NPC only / Setting only additions, which I honestly can't see as a large enough justification for going aganist what we've done so far. It's a traditionalist way to look at it, but it has worked for us so far.

Getting people to download a HAK when it's extremely limited in scope anyway, to me, seems silly.

I can't support making both servers .HAK operational, and making one server .HAK used and the other not seems, to me, without point considering it would not really permit us to work with what people want most - mechanical/balance fixes, and PC cosmetics.

And I can't really support making both servers .hak, because of the aforementioned reasons in regards to player accessability.

Xiru wrote:

Yurell wrote:

Convince the Australia Government that, with a population density sparser than Russia .... putting high-speed internet is definitely not easy across an entire continent with low population / population density.

How fast is your connection?

I found that www.speedtest.net gives both upload and download, so

Ignore the distance, it's wrong - my IP address seems to register in the oddest places (it changes randomly every time I turn the computer on).

As much as I enjoy Amia for being hak free, would some certainly add more flavor.
Much like all the armor options that are in the CEP 2.0, doesn't means we should use that. Its a nightmare to Download.
But some more pretty armors, hell, on another server I played on, which required haks and only had 7 people on, did I make a necromancer that looked Stunning in her spiky red and black robe, the shoulders were all spider spiky, then I added a belt part that added more spikes that came up, which were coloured differently in black and red, not red and black, and it looked reeeally great.
Would be fun if Amia had that too, and I wonder, if someone wouldn't want to download the hak, could they still see these armors?

I can see the advantages, but also the disadvantages.
You can't join that easily anymore, newcomers will first have to DL a hakpack for AMia to work, and then they can see how it will be.
Then again, if the hakpack is small should it be no real problem, but most other servers use big haklpacks, up to 170 MB or more, which does get troubling.
Not to forget that there are differents parts which you need to download from different locations, etc, etc.

Quote:

Would be fun if Amia had that too, and I wonder, if someone wouldn't want to download the hak, could they still see these armors?

No. You couldn't even log into the server anymore. Period.

Last edited by Galenson on Thu, Aug 20 2009, 11:12 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Zante wrote:

I would not mind Amia using haks really, not using them is a pretty big limit on what the devs can do.

Go to Arelith, come back and tell me that again.

To the rest of the Hak supporters, I say stick with the current set up: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If you're desperate for a change, go find some overrides and don't bother the rest of us who don't have the download limit or the time for new haks.

And yes, I'm in a good mood this evening.

TormakSaber wrote:

Quote:

Would be fun if Amia had that too, and I wonder, if someone wouldn't want to download the hak, could they still see these armors?

No. You couldn't even log into the server anymore. Period.

That's why Over-rides > Haks usually, since you only require an Over-ride if you want to see certain things other people may have, but you can still play without having them.

Galenson wrote:

Zante wrote:

I would not mind Amia using haks really, not using them is a pretty big limit on what the devs can do.

Go to Arelith, come back and tell me that again.

To the rest of the Hak supporters, I say stick with the current set up: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If you're desperate for a change, go find some overrides and don't bother the rest of us who don't have the download limit or the time for new haks.

And yes, I'm in a good mood this evening.

And that outlook is why Aussie and New Zealand have crappy slow infrastructure for internet. Because the governments saw it wasn't broken, so they didn't try to fix it. :lol:

Dev Disco wrote:

Well, to be honest I wouldn't really know what I'd want to use. A lot of custom content isn't that great.

Perhaps just start with a some more armor and weapon choices? That's where I'd start if I was calling the dance.

That's impossible. If you stick to one server you are limited to tilesets, creatures, and placeables. Basically anything that doesn't get shared between the servers.

Those three items are enough for me. Getting a bit fed up with the standard stuff and the last update may have been nice, but outside the new tilesets 75% of the content wasn't usable at all. Thanks for the horses and the trees that let your PC puke and the stupid flags that are not animated at all, but it doesn't really float my boat. Man, I'd give a crate of beer for some decent wall placeables so I don't have to build stuff from altars and rune pillars anymore.

Galenson wrote:

Zante wrote:

I would not mind Amia using haks really, not using them is a pretty big limit on what the devs can do.

Go to Arelith, come back and tell me that again.

Hell, look at *our server* and tell us that.

Im amazed daily at what the devs can do here, I cant script my way out of a wet paper bag. These guys can do some neat stuff, the game world isnt boring, there is variety, there is unique things, its a 'pretty' server.

Last edited by Pony on Thu, Aug 20 2009, 19:16 PM, edited 1 time in total.

You cant make a jungle, you cant make halls look so different from eachother (look at Barak Runedar and the Kohlingen Keep) and you cant use the great outside tileset like Wiltun to its full capacity because as soon as you change ground height it lags you to death. You need to waste around 15plcs just to make a piano or pipe organ. As disco said you need to use altars to make acceptable looking walls, which adds to the plc count enourmously instead of just dropping one (and which most likely looks a lot better and also serves its purpose better).

I'd personally see only good things comming if server b had a chance to expand with some nice things everyone would love to see but that is currently just impossible. As stated, people can play a without haks, which would not turn away those who want to see the server. Those who like it shouldnt have a problem to download the stuff. Those with a very bad connection can trust Disco will not bombard you with a huge amount of useless stuff and keep it in a reasonable size.

Cori wrote:

2) Look at all the questions and concerns in the head pak thread alone. Look at the number of new threads that pop up saying "Why do I see people with no heads"? OBVIOUSLY people are coming to play without the need to download. At least as it is, they CAN get in and play without teh OPTIONAL downloads like heads, hands, portraits. Not teh case with Haks. And yet, with teh all these threads, all these questions, people still think that it's not a big deal?

It is. We do perfectly good without haks. Disco does amazing things with the plc's we have. I like to think that my zones are attracting and interesting without haks. While they *might* bring some benefit...I think we stand to lose more than we stand to gain.

This got me to thinking.

People who come to the server and see people without heads, most likely don't know about the recent head pack. I don't think it's an aversion to wanting to download something as much as it's an ignorance to what needs to be downloaded. That being said, if the new head pack was to replace the old one, I doubt we'd see anymore of the "I see headless people!" threads.

This same logic carries over to a HAK. If it was clearly posted as to where it can be downloaded at, I don't think it would deter many people at all. Of course, it would have to be properly balanced for those with poor graphics cards, internet connections, etc. It appears to me that the major concerns with a HAK are that it may deter new players and the amount of strain it would put on those with download caps and low connectivity. If kept to a reasonable size, I don't think it would put any real strain on people with download caps and wouldn't take too long for those with small connections. Also, if the HAK was very clearly posted and easily accessable to a new player, I don't think it would really deter anyone from coming to play.

But thing is, several new players end up in Amia because they were browsing the server list and saw a hugely populated server and decided to log in.

I'm sure that a good percentage of those people wouldn't bother to download a hak just to try a server they never heard about. I know I wouldn't... even if there were plenty of "You can get it HERE" ads scattered around somewhere.

Quote:

I'd personally see only good things comming if server b had a chance to expand with some nice things everyone would love to see but that is currently just impossible. As stated, people can play a without haks, which would not turn away those who want to see the server. Those who like it shouldnt have a problem to download the stuff. Those with a very bad connection can trust Disco will not bombard you with a huge amount of useless stuff and keep it in a reasonable size.

Whjy would you ever voluntarily segregate your playerbase into what is effectively "Amia - Free!" and "Amia - Premium"?

Well, NWN is an old game. I wonder how many true newbies are joining the multiplayer nowadays, and how many are 'recycled' players who gave up NWN for other games, and later decide to play it again.

I am not convinced, that the amount of true newbies is big enough to be a major factor. It used to be, but we're not in the same situation as we were a few years ago.

A far more interesting group of people are the ones returning to NWN, methinks. Do they have better computers than they had a few years ago? Better connections? How many of them are there? Is NWN an interesting game enough in the first place for players to return to it after years?

Another question to ask, given NWN is an old game with a dedicated playerbase: who do we seek to serve as a priority group? Newbies or the established, dedicated players? Are we willing to take the risk of losing a few potential newbies in order to service the 'loyal customers' better?

Just some questions for both camps to think about. I've personally settled for neutrality on the matter.

What about the established, dedicated players who are established and dedicated here because we don't use haks?

I'm surprised to see that Amia is even considering adding HAKs, and that there are people vouching for them. People in the staff, none the less.

Amia being HAK-free has always been a sticking point in the past. A major sticking point, I must add.

To be honest, I believe we'd lose a lot of players by adding HAKs. Casual players, who wouldn't take interest in downloading an external file in order to play on the server.

Less players would come in, as well.

CEP is good due to the fact that so many players have it already, and therefore won't have to download something additional.

But CEP isn't what's being suggested here, I believe, and CEP itself is a 5% useful stuff and 95% pure crap.

I would stick with Amia being hak-free, even if it means that we'll be seeing more of the same as far as areas and other possible additions to the module(s) go.

TormakSaber wrote:

What about the established, dedicated players who are established and dedicated here because we don't use haks?

That's also a good question to think about.

The only interesting HAK that's even being seriously discussed is the Project Q, btw, which may or may not counter some of the problems with HAKs currently.

There is some creative using of the existing boxes, and creation of things with PLC's that are quite awesome. That being said, I don't think hak's are needed.

HAK's Cons:

Requires Downloads/Installing - Must be idiot/Comp illiterate proof

Requires updating - See above

Requires bug testing/load testing/stability testing - Crashing/lag on the server is bad.

Requires testing on how it affects older/low powered pc testing. Lagging/Crashing clients are bad.

Requires OMFG this is ass looking and we're not going to use it procedural checks - Have you seen some of the arse thats in CEP outfits/PLCs? Gag me with a blowtorch.

Might lose fresh blood players to other servers.

Requires development time building, utilizing, customizing the HAK library/management of distributing it - Uses up dev time which can be utilized on other things in the 'To do list'.

HAK's Pros:

One could in theory fix caster level/feat balance issues

One can add custom PLCs/Content.

Add more 'RP skills'

Quote:

HAK's Pros:

One could in theory fix caster level/feat balance issues

One can add custom PLCs/Content.

Add more 'RP skills'

Ugh... so... many... rebuilds....

Yurell wrote:

Aha. That explains a lot. *sagenod*

TormakSaber wrote:

Ugh... so... many... rebuilds....

;-;

Dwagin wrote:

There is some creative using of the existing boxes, and creation of things with PLC's that are quite awesome. That being said, I don't think hak's are needed.

HAK's Cons:

[...]

HAK's Pros:

One could in theory fix caster level/feat balance issues

One can add custom PLCs/Content.

Add more 'RP skills'

Under 'cons', you forgot' cannot physically log in without hak' and 'gigantic number of rebuilds for every mechanical change' I must ask ... how do haks add more RP skills?

Xiru wrote:

Yurell wrote:

Aha. That explains a lot. *sagenod*

That's around the standard for Australia.

Mine maxes out at about 2MBit/Second, and I'm -very- close to the city and local exchanges.

You poor Aussies.... Hah.... suckers... :twisted:

Honestly, like I said, I'm indifferent. Again, both servers should have it or they should not have it at all. But, I must admit, I'm starting to lean toward being against haks. I know, for me, that that was one of the reasons I came to Amia. The fact that it had no haks. If Amia put haks in, I wouldn't leave, but there are those who would. Not to mention, a lot of new people who would not want to come to the server because they have to download 100MB worth of bullshit.

I'd like to make a suggestion. If Amia was to go full HAK, unlikely as it may be, why not have one extra module running like B, but basically tottally small, completely hakless and made up of only one area. One area that informs new PC's they need to download the HAK's, the size of the HAK and download location. It could also be used to give other information that is on the website, but people don't know till they find out about said website.

Alternatively, if possibly, script it so it sends people without the appropriate hak to this server with one area, rather then disconnects them.

Just a thought.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

I'd like to make a suggestion. If Amia was to go full HAK, unlikely as it may be, why not have one extra module running like B, but basically tottally small, completely hakless and made up of only one area. One area that informs new PC's they need to download the HAK's, the size of the HAK and download location. It could also be used to give other information that is on the website, but people don't know till they find out about said website.

Alternatively, if possibly, script it so it sends people without the appropriate hak to this server with one area, rather then disconnects them.

Just a thought.

What would be the point in that? Clicking on the information tells them where to go for the haks (since it would likely say www.amiaworld.net under website), so a separate module seems rather redundant. Plus they still don't get to try it, so its just as useful as the 'server info' button (or whatever it's called) that already exists.

Yurell wrote:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

I'd like to make a suggestion. If Amia was to go full HAK, unlikely as it may be, why not have one extra module running like B, but basically tottally small, completely hakless and made up of only one area. One area that informs new PC's they need to download the HAK's, the size of the HAK and download location. It could also be used to give other information that is on the website, but people don't know till they find out about said website.

Alternatively, if possibly, script it so it sends people without the appropriate hak to this server with one area, rather then disconnects them.

Just a thought.

What would be the point in that? Clicking on the information tells them where to go for the haks (since it would likely say www.amiaworld.net under website), so a separate module seems rather redundant. Plus they still don't get to try it, so its just as useful as the 'server info' button (or whatever it's called) that already exists.

Well, actually it doesn't. The server discription button in NWN is bugged out. It never holds the entire website address and thus nobody uses it except to check the IP. The reason I suggested the one room module is because someone above mentioned it's not the fact that it has HAK's that the problem, or even that they don't get to try it, it's that most people are ignorant of where and how to get these HAK's easily.

I'm inclined to agree. I've never shied away from trying a server because it requires downloads, I usually don't go on the server because either.

A. The Download is to big (Talking 800 or more MB's)
B. I don't know where to get the downloads. (Web Addresses with "Http://Theawesomeserver.com/files/HAKS" which usually get's cut off at ".com".)

On the topic of haks

Who is online