Graal Forums - Oi, nutter! Classic has been discontinued!

Page 2 of 5

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Graal Forums (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/index.php)

- Classic Main Forum (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Oi, nutter! Classic has been discontinued! (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134268067)

Ducati_Link

04-13-2013 03:37 AM

Well said Pandar, well said. *nods*

Fulg0reSama

04-13-2013 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandar (Post 1716113)

Maybe it's not exactly "stupid" to want to continue building Classic, but it certainly is a fool's errand. What are you expecting, even if you do hit the Classic tab? What playerbase are you reaching for?

Zodiac's playerbase doesn't play classic. They play RPG. You're not getting them.
Era's playerbase doesn't play classic. They play modern/shooters. You're not getting them either.

The only playerbase you have any hopes of commanding is UN's, and that's not going to get either server anywhere. By having two classic servers, you're effectively slicing the already tiny classic playerbase in half and splitting it between servers. That leaves you with what? 10? 15 players each? What's the point?

We saw this with Babylon, and that's why we stopped trying. Maybe if Graal had a sudden surge of popularity again, this could actually be worthwhile. But right now it's not. Graal won't attract a single new player until Stefan removes the asinine monthly cost of playing an already dead PC game.

Telling ya, we need an RTS (and or a server that is different in an interesting way) server and obviously a better way of letting players play without paying for horrid quality.

MattKan

04-13-2013 04:35 AM

I guess I just don't see a purpose of working on a Classic PC now. The justification for it used to be that Classic iPhone was limited by Stefan but lately he seems to be loosening his grasp (new tileset, anyone?).

There's really no point in developing two separate servers, and, to be frank, Classic iPhone definitely isn't the candidate for deletion out of the two. It might be cool to see (with the allowance of the creators, of course) some of Classic PC's quests, etc. integrated into Classic iPhone.

I'd also love to see Classic iPhone being accessible via the Graal Client. I believe Stefan is planning to do that with Zone iPhone, and I think it's a good opportunity to do the same with Classic. Granted, I have the Facebook version, but it is a bit glitchy and still, in my opinion, inferior to a desktop, fully functioning client.

xAndrewx

04-13-2013 09:22 AM

hahaha serves you right thor. ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

Tricxta

04-13-2013 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xAndrewx (Post 1716138)

hahaha serves you right thor. ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

Thor was always in the right :cool: he stood up for we the people.

The_Messenger

04-13-2013 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xAndrewx (Post 1716042)

well done thor- hope ur happy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xAndrewx (Post 1716138)

hahaha serves you right thor. ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

If you think this is somehow irritating me you are sadly mistaken, keep in mind that discontinuing Classic was mainly my own decision, and a forum account ban makes no significant difference whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattKan (Post 1716132)

It might be cool to see (with the allowance of the creators, of course) some of Classic PC's quests, etc. integrated into Classic iPhone.

I never rejected this proposal, I merely wanted clarification as to what would be happening with PC Graal and Stefan ducked out of it as usual, then later slanderously accused me of refusing to help. It's a shame people like SNK who are in a position which doesn't have to deal with such asinine policies are unable to recognise such an obvious trend, and think it was me who wasn't willing to reach a compromise.

xAndrewx

04-13-2013 01:31 PM

So are you going to continue making it or not?

Look, if Classic was as popular as Era or Zodiac do you think Stefan wouldn't remove the cap? Average playercount on Classic was on average below 10 wasn't it

Seriously, if you are optimistic about Classic you would make the changes and look forward to developing it. The changes wouldn't have made a big impact on the game play. From my personal opinion, I see you as stubborn and selfish for not even doing the changes and are wanting everybody to feel sorry for you.

Remind me again, what did Stefan ask you to do BEFORE he removed the cap

maximus_asinus

04-13-2013 01:46 PM

I am curious to know what restrictions Stefan wanted to put in place as well. From what I have heard, all he wanted was a restriction on the GMAP for trial accounts in exchange for removal of observer mode. That sounds exceptable to me.

xAndrewx

04-13-2013 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximus_asinus (Post 1716149)

That was it- I wanted Thor to be the one to say it.

The_Messenger

04-13-2013 02:09 PM

I began by proposing a plan which combined scripted restrictions and micro-transactions. It took 5 months before I was able to get my first response where Stefan said it was an effective way to go about it, but also made a lot of excuses such as security.
Neither the plan or my subsequent enquiries and explanations regarding security ended up being acknowledged.
Eventually Stefan suggested we could prevent trials from going north of the bridge. This was a shockingly bad suggestion which would have been even worse than observer mode, it would ruin the entire design of the server and limit gameplay even more.
Stefan never responded when I attempted to negotiate a more reasonable Quest cut-off point, which although not ideal, wouldn't have severely restricted the server.
Stefan told both myself and Bell he plans to implement a new map area restriction into a future V6 client. This idea is not compatible with the small map design of the server, and arguably means what he "suggested" before was actually what he intended to do all along.
I proposed a new plan which scrapped micro-transactions and involved a larger list of scripted restrictions, I asked for an explicit yes/no answer and none was given.
Stefan finally resorted to the excuse of PlayerWorlds using their own unique restrictions being a bad thing, and so he wants them all to be using the same built-in restrictions. This was somewhat contradicting his earlier responses.
I made a new offer which didn't involve having control over restrictions through script as he was against, instead it was an offer to do something I felt would have been largely beneficial to the scripting community and future developers. His response was "I simply cannot remove observer mode for Classic right now x-x. Maybe it would be good to talk to Unixmad on Skype"
After being given a bizarre explanation for my first contact request not being accepted, Unixmad accepted my second request, then told me to email him first. After 3 weeks of no response I sent him a message each day and still got no response. One night he sent me a bizarre message, then later said it was to the wrong person. Only after I reacted angrily to this he started talking, he gave an excuse of "removing observer mode will not attract 1000 players".

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/2596/stubborn.png

:rolleyes:

xAndrewx

04-13-2013 02:16 PM

FYI guys- the ones in bold are pointless.

There is only one thing Stefan asked.

I began by proposing a plan which combined scripted restrictions and micro-transactions. It took 5 months before I was able to get my first response where Stefan said it was an effective way to go about it, but also made a lot of excuses such as security.
Neither the plan or my subsequent enquiries and explanations regarding security ended up being acknowledged.
Eventually Stefan suggested we could prevent trials from going north of the bridge. This was a shockingly bad suggestion which would have been even worse than observer mode, it would ruin the entire design of the server and limit gameplay even more.
Stefan never responded when I attempted to negotiate a more reasonable Quest cut-off point, which although not ideal, wouldn't have severely restricted the server.
Stefan told both myself and Bell he plans to implement a new map area restriction into a future V6 client. This idea is not compatible with the small map design of the server, and arguably means what he "suggested" before was actually what he intended to do all along.
I proposed a new plan which scrapped micro-transactions and involved a larger list of scripted restrictions, I asked for an explicit yes/no answer and none was given.
Stefan finally resorted to the excuse of PlayerWorlds using their own unique restrictions being a bad thing, and so he wants them all to be using the same built-in restrictions. This was somewhat contradicting his first response.
I made a new offer which didn't involve having control over restrictions through script as he was against, instead it was an offer to do something I felt would have been largely beneficial to the scripting community and future developers. His response was "I simply cannot remove observer mode for Classic right now x-x. Maybe it would be good to talk to Unixmad on Skype"
After being given a bizarre explanation for my first contact request not being accepted, Unixmad accepted my second request, then told me to email him first. After 3 weeks of no response I sent him a message each day and still got no response. One night he sent me a bizarre message, then later said it was to the wrong person. Only after I reacted angrily to this he started talking, he gave an excuse of "removing observer mode will not attract 1000 players".

So during the time he asked you to do this- what did you do?

Oh yes, you used that ostrich gani and stopped caring.

The_Messenger

04-13-2013 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xAndrewx (Post 1716155)

FYI guys- the ones in bold are pointless.

Not at all, you have to consider the bigger picture rather than pick one small part which might suit your argument if you really stretch it.

It's also not as if he actually asked us to do it and said he would remove observer mode, it was a one-off suggestion which as shown was merely his intention to begin with, and even then contradicted by saying he doesn't want PlayerWorlds using their own restrictions.

xAndrewx

04-13-2013 02:22 PM

This is why I think you're selfish. He asked you to do one thing about a year back, which you refused to do. It wasn't going to be hard for you to implement it- you just refused to.
If you look at it in the bigger picture, you wasted two to 10 years of your life making a server which you won't finish.

Well done.

You know I supported you and Classic, but always disagreed with you on this one thing. Thanks for making Classic up to this point, it's great. (no sarcasm)

The_Messenger

04-13-2013 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xAndrewx (Post 1716157)

This is why I think you're selfish. He asked you to do one thing about a year back, which you refused to do. It wasn't going to be hard for you to implement it- you just refused to.

Nobody ever said this would be hard to do, the point is that it would have been a retarded thing to do which would have left us in an even worse position.
It's irrelevant anyway, even if I had agreed to do it there's a 99.9% chance he'd have changed his mind and said "actually I'm building this into the client" or "actually I don't want PlayerWorlds using their own restrictions".

xAndrewx

04-13-2013 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Messenger (Post 1716158)

Yes, so it was easy to do it. You just didn't do it, for over a year you complained about it, regardless of how easy it was.

Wait, what? are you serious?
Have you looked at Era and Zodiac? Both of them limit trials. Why would he all of a sudden say "Actually, no."?

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:08 PM.

Page 2 of 5

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page