AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Since there is allot going on and changing on Amia B may I suggest getting the transitions there liking to that on A again?

I know it was talked about before but I do believe it will help out allot making traditional transitions instead of the dialog ones, bring more players there that enjoy Amia as well as keep new players that go to Amia B. Going from A to B now as it stands is like going to a completely different server with a different style. Amia should be more consistent with their layout style then making it completely foreign, crossovers should not confuse people as much. Keep them similar in style would promote more and keep more players interested when they do crossover between the two, after learning Amia A most do not want to have to relearn a whole new system just because they go to Amia B, Amia A is successful so why mess with that success?

I know some say it should be harder to understand and learn as well as get around since it is the Underdark, however, you can still make it that way for those who travel there less by using traditional transitions, those who travel there less would not know how to get to places anyways even without the dialog style, even set up a labyrinth where no map can be seen to navigate it, that’s possible to do for I have seen it long ago.

There is another issue with the dialog transitions that wasn’t brought up before, you can get to areas from another too easily, if a faction has hold of a area they can not defend it just outside their area, cant defend the transition leading to it.

I love the transitions. I think it makes it a hell of a lot quicker instead of wandering through transition areas that just take time... It is new and different, but I would also describe it as better. Exploring the new UD hunting areas is a lot easier than other areas IMO because you can pop in and out of areas, see what is there, and be gone.

faction thing? I wouldn't place a faction area directly at the transition door, but at the other end of another area. I don't really see the problem...

I think the corridors in the UD give a far better idea of what the place actually is than the neatly fitting surface areas. The UD isn't a pancake, it's a swiss cheese.

About the suggestion not to mess with a winning formula: most B is mapped out like the rest of Amia. This doesn't indicate much of a correlation.

There are a couple of problems with these transitions which I think will start to be noticed when they are used more.

Firstly, the conversations port everyone within party who is close by. At present, parties that are there are probably all doing the same thing but this will not work well for the giant drow parties and there will be lots of unnecessary porting.

Secondly, in order to use these conversations, you come out of hiding. This will cause problems for all the sneaky rp which should be going on down there.

Yeah, the latter is pretty annoying. I remember some NWNX plugin dealing with it, though. The matter of teh public speaking is easily solved.

The one thing I'm concerned about is if we can add a way to trail people in the new underdark? As it is I don't believe there's any way to follow some one with out being noticed.

I like the transition system in UD B. I find it great. It makes it feel enormous and labyrinthine.

Corridors? But there really isn’t any corridors on UDB, the transitions being a dialog doesn’t show any aspect of it being Swiss cheese either. If your trying to go for a multi corridor junction to go in several different directions then why not just make that junction a visual one and have three or four transitions close to each other, up and down a ramp, left and right of the ramps, ect. That would more appealing and still could be confusing but less so as well as easier to mentally picture then just words in a dialog. As far as a labyrinth, why not make one instead, one that doesn’t have a map viewing of the area, I know this can be done for I seen it done where the whole map was whited out.

As said to follow someone is impossible in this system, you cant just follow through a transition because that transition can take you to several places.

I see what Godo means when taking my drowess Ky around in the UDB. It is impossible to follow someone through the transitions without being in their party. There isn't any visible dialogue sent out to alert anyone around of where you're going to go which is neat on the one hand for the one being followed but if they are consenting to the suspense of being tailed...it doesn't work without them sending tells back and forth.

Tells:

"I'm going into the second tunnel, still following me?"
"Yeah, wait is that the upper or lower?"
"Upper. Are you following me for tailing or such?"
"yeah. My PC/toon is supposed to be following to spy on you"
"Okay! I'm going to go this way"

Belief breaking on an OOC level really.

...Why not a quick message popping up where the person was saying the name of where the person selected? Or an option to check the tracks of the last person who went through?

Why not just go ahead and cut out the rock face of the transition and put in three, four or whatever number of transitions that are needed? On the other side where different places are to go place those the same way there with the one you exited going back.

One cave mouth to go to several different places doesn’t really make sense and if it is said that it forks off then why not represent that by actually entering it and have the area where it does fork off? To me it just seems its just a way to keep from building areas between other areas. Look at the tunnels, these locations in them are likely going to become faction areas, does anyone want competing factions to be at the feet of another just by a single transition without having true distance between them?

Selvec Darkon wrote:

...Why not a quick message popping up where the person was saying the name of where the person selected? Or an option to check the tracks of the last person who went through?

That would add too much lag, probably.

We could create a few areas that represents the forks?
You leave through the current transition and show up in a corridor with transitions leading to all the places you could get through the menu? It would allow people to sneak through, maintain the feel of the new under dark and possible help those who have trouble remembering names instead of directions.

You guys do know there is - or was - a thread for suggestions for Underdark B, right?

^^;;

I will stop being lazy and find the link. Hold on.

EDIT: Here, though I could not find the one I had in mind.

UD-B Bugs
http://www.amiaworld.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=40181

Amia B Design Suggestions
http://www.amiaworld.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=39951

Godo wrote:

Why not just go ahead and cut out the rock face of the transition and put in three, four or whatever number of transitions that are needed? On the other side where different places are to go place those the same way there with the one you exited going back.

One cave mouth to go to several different places doesn’t really make sense and if it is said that it forks off then why not represent that by actually entering it and have the area where it does fork off? To me it just seems its just a way to keep from building areas between other areas. Look at the tunnels, these locations in them are likely going to become faction areas, does anyone want competing factions to be at the feet of another just by a single transition without having true distance between them?

Do you have a clue about how many areas there are in the new UD? It's not the unambitious "let's throw in one area for every 3 levels and be done with it" project like on A. Your idea of 3, 4 interconnecting tunnels misses the point if you want to join up the 30+ spots that now use a corridor. With a lot of cross-links, mind you. It's would take more than hundred of those little areas to do what I do now.

Besides, Illithids aren't going to live a little tunnel away from you and just sit there.

If you want a tunnel in underdark between A & B, grab some gnomes & duergar, then start digging.

Selvec Darkon wrote:

If you want a tunnel in underdark between A & B, grab some gnomes & duergar, then start digging.

Except A is amian island, and b is on mainland?

Also on topic of tunnels and travel... you do need to pass whole areas to get to some more distant ones. Yeah, ogre, troll and bat caves are near the rift, but rest are farther away and should stay that way. If there was 8593 corridors to get somewhere like in mines, i would prolly go nuts trying to get there over and over again.

Bjorn wrote:

Selvec Darkon wrote:

If you want a tunnel in underdark between A & B, grab some gnomes & duergar, then start digging.

Except A is amian island, and b is on mainland?

Not necessarily true for the latter, except for ... all of the Underdark (afaik), leading to many hours of fun digging. I'd challenge you to dig a tunnel to just Wiltun..

I had thought that the Underdark existed in such places at the Moonshaes and Ruathym. If there's not a tunnel around the areas, then it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to think there's a portal or something down there, right? Unless they just have pocket-sized Underdark in the Moonshaes.

Koragi Mydnite wrote:

I had thought that the Underdark existed in such places at the Moonshaes and Ruathym. If there's not a tunnel around the areas, then it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to think there's a portal or something down there, right? Unless they just have pocket-sized Underdark in the Moonshaes.

It likely does extend that far, but thusfar I've only found tunnels from the mainland. If there are others, it could just be because I've not explored well enough. But I would wonder at walking several thousand miles underground in a few hours.

Dev Disco wrote:

Godo wrote:

Why not just go ahead and cut out the rock face of the transition and put in three, four or whatever number of transitions that are needed? On the other side where different places are to go place those the same way there with the one you exited going back.

One cave mouth to go to several different places doesn’t really make sense and if it is said that it forks off then why not represent that by actually entering it and have the area where it does fork off? To me it just seems its just a way to keep from building areas between other areas. Look at the tunnels, these locations in them are likely going to become faction areas, does anyone want competing factions to be at the feet of another just by a single transition without having true distance between them?

Do you have a clue about how many areas there are in the new UD? It's not the unambitious "let's throw in one area for every 3 levels and be done with it" project like on A. Your idea of 3, 4 interconnecting tunnels misses the point if you want to join up the 30+ spots that now use a corridor. With a lot of cross-links, mind you. It's would take more than hundred of those little areas to do what I do now.

Besides, Illithids aren't going to live a little tunnel away from you and just sit there.

I think perhaps I did not explain it well enough because you did not understand what I was getting at Disco. I have not yet seen any of those dialog transitions with 30+ areas to chose from.

Instead of one transition that has four places to go just create four transition right there in that area, each with just one place to go. Sort of like going into the crystal caves but have the cave openings more closer together. Perhaps on a few of them you could transition into some type corroder where the different cave mouths are, should be plenty of ideas and options to make it labyrinth like.

You can still have the areas set up the same way, where you have to cross areas to have to go to different places, just when you get to that cave mouth instead of one to go different places you have 2, 3, 4 or even 5 cave mouths to chose from. Same amount as you have in the dialogs, each pointing in different directions illustrating even up and down.

To make it confusing and possibly getting lost even just have no maps to those areas, have them whited out just so you can see where you are in relation to the whole area but can’t see how the terrain is or where those cave mouths are.

I hope this is more understandable then apparently my last post was.

Adding in otherwise-pointless blank areas to serve the same purpose as a dialogue, is not a good use of server space, in my opinion. I'd rather put the server resources to use hosting cool areas which serve more of a purpose.

I'm not saying that this idea doesn't serve a purpose, mind you. It does. We all see that. But I don't personally think it serves a good enough purpose to change what we have now, which I think overall is better.

I guess my last post is still not that clear, sorry for that. I am not saying add pointless areas at all, I am saying add more cave mouths that go to the areas in the dialog. If the dialog goes to four different areas then instead of one cave mouth going to those areas have four cave mouths in the same general area as that one with the dialogs.

Sorry all, I seem to be having a hard time explaining what I a, picturing. Can anyone else that understands what I am getting at describe it better?

Quote:

Perhaps on a few of them you could transition into some type corroder where the different cave mouths are,

I was referring to that statement.

Believe it or not, we are quite able to understand what you are picturing.

Disagreement with your idea does not equate to lack of understanding.

As to simply putting in more cave mouths, well, that would only work even half-decently, if done as you described, with a separate room with the various cave mouths. They are tileset features, not placeables, meaning they can only be placed down in certain locations, take up an entire "square" (tile), can only have certain other types of terrain feature around them (as in, they severely limit the design possibilities of the surrounding area). designing the Phaerlock Tunnels was a bitch because of these facts. Several things I *wanted* to do with that area, simply could not be done, because of the limitations of cave tiles.

If it is you say over all better then why isn’t all of Amia set up in this way? Realize that I am not the only one who really dislikes the dialog system, there are many on Amia that dislike this type of system but most will not speak up about it, instead they just do not go to UD B. Now that the undertakers are basically being forced to B, some will most likely stop playing in the UD because of this system. it’s the main reason that I played in the Underdark A instead of B but from what I am told, I still consider it rumor though until a DM says otherwise, that the Underdark is basically being transferred to B.

The dialog system to transitions has too many issues that I do not think was thought out before implemented and now that it is implemented makes it harder to change it, either by design or by not wanting to accept that there are those limitations. There are some things that dialog travel is useful for, like boats, rafts, caravans, carts but not really sensible for caves and transitions to other areas that are supposed to be adjoining. As far as using the resources for other things then use them for more areas there that would have meaning as well as would have transitions to other areas, just like on Amia A Underdark. I am sorry if I sound harsh but just because those that play there like the system do not see why many that would be playing there but do not because of the system. Depends on if you just want fewer players on B UD or more.

If it is true that the Underdark on Amia A is being faded out then your trying to force those UD players to cope with a system they do not like or want in the hopes of getting it to have more players. In my opinion the experiment with this system failed, it has not brought more players there, if anything it has kept some players away.

The underdark can stretch beneath the ocean. Torils general geography in terms of the planet is pretty similar to every other planet. It has a crust, and the oceans simply lie in gigantic crevices in that crust, lower terrain levels and such.

While it would be an big undertaking it would be quite possible to do, extremely dangerous however. Remember the further down you go in the underdark the more likely you become to encounter bigger and meanier nasties. Talking god killing creatures.

But it is possible. I imagine anything on Amia is possible as long as the resources are put into it...even say...making your own permanent portal.

Uh, Amia has been built up slowly over years. Systems change.

Also, as has been explained, it makes sense for Amia island to be designed how it is - and changes got made a couple years ago in order to MAKE it imake more sense. The UDb makes sense how *it* is setup now, moreso if you look at the combatlog messages describing how long your trip takes, and how far you travel up or down, etc.

Nothing wrong with suggesting changes though. Perhaps one of these times, a suggestion will be sufficiently better than the current as to cause a change. I'm sorry, but this idea is, in my opinion, not it.

Godo wrote:

If it is you say over all better then why isn’t all of Amia set up in this way? Realize that I am not the only one who really dislikes the dialog system, there are many on Amia that dislike this type of system but most will not speak up about it, instead they just do not go to UD B. Now that the undertakers are basically being forced to B, some will most likely stop playing in the UD because of this system. it’s the main reason that I played in the Underdark A instead of B but from what I am told, I still consider it rumor though until a DM says otherwise, that the Underdark is basically being transferred to B.

The dialog system to transitions has too many issues that I do not think was thought out before implemented and now that it is implemented makes it harder to change it, either by design or by not wanting to accept that there are those limitations. There are some things that dialog travel is useful for, like boats, rafts, caravans, carts but not really sensible for caves and transitions to other areas that are supposed to be adjoining. As far as using the resources for other things then use them for more areas there that would have meaning as well as would have transitions to other areas, just like on Amia A Underdark. I am sorry if I sound harsh but just because those that play there like the system do not see why many that would be playing there but do not because of the system. Depends on if you just want fewer players on B UD or more.

If it is true that the Underdark on Amia A is being faded out then your trying to force those UD players to cope with a system they do not like or want in the hopes of getting it to have more players. In my opinion the experiment with this system failed, it has not brought more players there, if anything it has kept some players away.

The rest of Amia, as Disco is repeatedly pointing out, is built upon the pancake known as the surface. It is, for most intents and purposes, two dimensional. Underground cave networks, however, known as the Underdark make it a lot easier to move in three dimensions, and can have lots of intersecting tunnels. Furthermore, the current system allows Disco to make new areas without having to change a dozen others ... it suspends disbelief better to say that the passages always exist, and people found them (which is why the dialogue appeared) than hae fifty miniature earthquakes a month causing convenient tunnels to open without closing existing ones.

Problem with that is the dialog style doesn’t show three dimensional travel either, that is represented, like anywhere else, going up a slope to a cave, going down to a cave, going left or right. If anything the dialog system is even more harmful to that representation for its just words of places rather then visual directions. One might as well be on the old style text muds with it.

Godo wrote:

Problem with that is the dialog style doesn’t show three dimensional travel either, that is represented, like anywhere else, going up a slope to a cave, going down to a cave, going left or right. If anything the dialog system is even more harmful to that representation for its just words of places rather then visual directions. One might as well be on the old style text muds with it.

How is it harmful? The text gives the feeling of a mixed-up cavern network that you can get anywhere from anywhere, and whenever you use it it tells you in the combat menu how far up you've gone and how long you've travelled.

The distance and time traveled is a neat little thing but presents another problem with time consistency, start your travel at hour 0 and it says it takes you 72 min going up 35 meters its still at hour 0. Even though it is a neat little thing added it is essentially useless, who is even going to pay attention to it? Even in RP people use their clocks on the directional icon, if they have a meeting on hour 2 and they see its hour 1 are they going to go through that transition that took 70 min and just go darn, we missed the meeting? These are little esthetics that doesn’t really help anything except perhaps try and give it a defendable stance.

I'm not sure I see the point of your post. I dislike the "points of interest" system myself but it quite makes sense for the Underdark.

I like the system. I think that a lot of characters in the UD are epics. The way to attract some more to Underdark B is to bring in the epic areas. Suddenly, people will want to go...

Also, wishlist, can we have a Bank down there?

Playing with Transitions isn't going to fix the problem. The problem is that B has 6 players right now, whilst A has 44...right now.

The two server system was built when we were surging with people...then, lots of folks left and now we're not so surging anymore. Why they left, is speculative at best. But until numbers go up again, one server will remain largely empty except at peak times.

Godo wrote:

The distance and time traveled is a neat little thing but presents another problem with time consistency, start your travel at hour 0 and it says it takes you 72 min going up 35 meters its still at hour 0. Even though it is a neat little thing added it is essentially useless, who is even going to pay attention to it? Even in RP people use their clocks on the directional icon, if they have a meeting on hour 2 and they see its hour 1 are they going to go through that transition that took 70 min and just go darn, we missed the meeting? These are little esthetics that doesn’t really help anything except perhaps try and give it a defendable stance.

Your points have been noted. Unfortunately it's not going to happen because the current system allows me to slot in new areas without much problems. It also counters the current "excuse me, just passing by to the next boss and triggering everything in sight" issues.

I do like to add some BG style "you have been ambushed" thinghy to the corridor system.

Godo wrote:

The distance and time traveled is a neat little thing but presents another problem with time consistency, start your travel at hour 0 and it says it takes you 72 min going up 35 meters its still at hour 0. Even though it is a neat little thing added it is essentially useless, who is even going to pay attention to it? Even in RP people use their clocks on the directional icon, if they have a meeting on hour 2 and they see its hour 1 are they going to go through that transition that took 70 min and just go darn, we missed the meeting? These are little esthetics that doesn’t really help anything except perhaps try and give it a defendable stance.

Who uses their clocks for time? Otherwise it takes hours to do anything, and time passes at a rate thirty times faster than in real life ... you log off for a day and your char is away for a month.

Well of course not, it’s a convenience to the builders and that is more important then player convenience or play. Having to travel through areas is not a bad thing at all, it creates more chance encounters thus creating more RP. I have traveled for hours and hours on Amia and not seen a soul because people use the teleport wands in conjunction with the cart system to move from place to place for almost everywhere. What is the goal of the server? To keep players more separated into their groups to social RP mainly? Why not try to create more chance encounters between groups, while they travel to their respective area, on patrols around those areas, instead of just being whisked away to their factions areas not crossing paths. That sort of thing is great for hack and slash servers where RP is not considered but do you honestly think it’s the way for a RP server to keep the different factions from having to cross paths?

I believe the server is indeed at a crossroads and it needs to have a overview of what it wants to be, is it a RP server, social server, or hack and slash server? Once that is truly decided then start working towards that goal. Trying to be all of them will only dilute each of them.

I can't help to notice that your "we should" really means "somebody else should". You also got the wrong manual of the average builder. The best way of not getting what you want is telling people you know it all so much better.

"All of them" are not in any way exclusive of each other.

Forcing "specialization" to one style of play will immediately and irreconcilably alienate a third or more of the playerbase, likely forever. I am here because all of these things are what Amia is. If we became hardcore RP, I'd be gone. Hardcore arena/PvP, I'd be gone. Social, I'd be gone faster than any of the others!

Amia succeeds because it pretty decently blends the various styles. It's not 100% successful, no, and improvements can be, and frequently are, made. But utterly changing the very core basis of the server is ~not~ a viable option.

I'm trying to picture a game of hockey in which a player who has the puck is politely asked by the opponents if he'd be so kind as to allow them to have possession, perhaps sitting down to tea in the middle of the rink to discuss the matter. That'd be more or less what it would be like to decide that Amia should, for instance, become a social-focused server.

ON topic though, unless the port/cart system is utterly removed, the more areas you add for people to "pass through", the MORE you'll segregate people, and the less likely it will be that people meet up by chance, because it would now be MORE tedious to journey on foot over taking the easy fast route. The less areas, the more likely chance meetings are, so your argument doesn't hold water, I'm afraid.

Cori wrote:

I'm trying to picture a game of hockey in which a player who has the puck is politely asked by the opponents if he'd be so kind as to allow them to have possession, perhaps sitting down to tea in the middle of the rink to discuss the matter. That'd be more or less what it would be like to decide that Amia should, for instance, become a social-focused server.

Except hockey has set winning conditions, Amia doesn't. In that manner, Amia is more of a toy than a game, and a great toy at that.

This is true. I just found it to be a really amusing thing to picture.

"He's charging the player with the puck, looks like he's gonna check him!"

"No, no,wait... they've stopped at the blue line. What's happening now, can you see Ted?"

"Oh my god, Rob, I think they're going for the Tea-party play! The crowd is almost reverant, hushed by the suspense! The referees are setting up the table and chairs, and the coaches are coming onto the ice with tea and crumpets."

"No wait, Ted! That's a scone, not a crumpet!"

"Wow! Who'd have seen that coming! What a play! Looks like this game's going into overtime. The fans are going wild!"

Your analogy of hockey actually supports what I was saying not what you was saying. Hockey has a set purpose, goal, not a variety of purposes and goals like Amia does. What type of server is Amia? A RP server? A social server? Or a hack and slash server? Determine that and the choices made in further developments then can be more consistent instead of just throwing things in to try and appeal to everyone.

When you attempt to please everyone all that happens is you displease more then you make happy. As far as having people travel across areas to get to their own or to other area separating people more is false, players will still congregate at the areas they consider their own just like now, however, in getting there they would more likely encounter other groups and individuals creating more RP in those encounters, as it stands now there are less encounters and more separation because they can just teleport away from each other rather then having to deal with each other in chance meetings.

From what I have been seeing lately is that Amia is starting to lean towards the social server type and many changes coming into play is only enforcing that style of server. If that is the type of server that is wanted then fine and dandy, just do not hide behind the description as a RP server, perhaps change it to a social RP server instead. I am not saying it should be a hard core RP server by no means but at least if it is to be a RP server then focus on that aspect rather then all types.

Nothing wrong with cherry-picking the best of all worlds. We can be a teaspoonful of action, two cups of RP, a pinch of hack'n'slash and two of social if we like.

And I think the majority here does like not being forced into a box of single type of RP. Or a single type of server. Of course, it's not everybody's cup of tea. But it doesn't need to be, either.

I can't help but feel that if people didn't like the mixed style server that Amia represents it wouldn't be nearly so popular... but hey, I'm sure being one of the most populated servers around doesn't count for much...

I think that the thread got off track, it was supposed to be about Underdark on B, which is not hardly populated at all. Only recently has the Underdark been getting more players and that is only because Ultrinnan is being disserted and some of those players are headed over there. Some are not however because of the confusing dialog transitions.

This thread makes little sense.

Godo, mate, if it ain't broke don't fix it. The dialogue transitions serve a purpose, (both making the UD layered, claustrophobic and giving the Underdark races an advantage over non-Underdarkers when it comes to navigation) I spent atleast 100 hours making sure that purpose was met when I was thrown in the maze and told to look for cheese.

Its not flawless but then again... nothing ever is.

That’s just it, I do not see how that system makes it anymore layered then the traditional transitions with ups and downs nor makes it anymore claustrophobic either. I do not memorize names of places to know the places I have been to return, instead I remember landmarks, terrain, and directions. You will fine there are many others that are the same way and instead of bringing them to the UD as UD races it keeps them away.

By what has been said here I understand that it will not be changed to the normal way people have learned to travel on NWN, god forbid that a change or idea that was implemented be considered a bad one after all.

Underdark B doesn’t have but a few dedicated players there and unless if it forced on others who truly want to be Underdark races I fear it will only just have those few truly dedicated ones while the rest stay as surface races or Underdark races living on the surface. it’s a shame really since the Underdark RP can be fantastic, especially when filled with players, only to be limited to less players just because a system that confuses and turns people away.

I love playing a Underdark race and will still go there if the UD on A is taken away but I will not, can not, learn the system there as you have so I will just stick to a very few areas that do not confuse me as much.

So one goes to the effort to have a whine about something but can't go the extra length to learn something new.

I see no point anymore.

Dev Disco wrote:

Do you have a clue about how many areas there are in the new UD? It's not the unambitious "let's throw in one area for every 3 levels and be done with it" project like on A. Your idea of 3, 4 interconnecting tunnels misses the point if you want to join up the 30+ spots that now use a corridor. With a lot of cross-links, mind you. It's would take more than hundred of those little areas to do what I do now.

Besides, Illithids aren't going to live a little tunnel away from you and just sit there.

Dev Disco wrote:

Your points have been noted. Unfortunately it's not going to happen because the current system allows me to slot in new areas without much problems. It also counters the current "excuse me, just passing by to the next boss and triggering everything in sight" issues.

Doesn't that pretty much cover this entire topic?

Yes, but several people enjoy pushing the buttons anyways, much like the people who post over and over again in balancing topics with very little idea of 'balance'.

First off its not about pushing buttons, its about seeing a problem and attempting to show that problem to a few people who refuse to see or accept that there may be some type of problem with their ideas. You come up and implement a idea so it must be perfect, you’re the DM, I am just player, so why should anything I see or say matter because everyone knows the DM is all mighty and always correct no matter what.. UD B has very few players, empty most times even, yet you refuse to see one of the reasons why it may be like that. If you only want a limited amount of players on UD B then just say so, no need to make it more confusing and unwelcoming for new players to come and RP there.

Mr Mago, on those quotes you did ob Disco. The first one was totally off from what I was saying, shows clearly that I was misunderstood. The second is in the view of making the builders job easier for them rather then any comment based on players playability and interactions. Those quotes did not cover the entire topic, not even close.

You might as well close this topic all together because it is apparent that you rather make it harder on the players to enjoy the Underdark on B then to try and draw more players to it.

Underdark on B

Who is online