This poll is completely pointless. People in one kingdom are going to ask other members to vote for a certain kingdom just to get rid it and so their kingdom is secured.

Actually, the results are pretty much the same as I expected, so I don't really see how that can be true.

Hmm
 

I try to be active, but recently it has been hard. I pop on now and then when I can due to my work schedule, but that doesn't mean I'm inactive at this point. And referring to Daya's idea, it would be good to use that, a 3x3 grid for islands.

Many people have before suggested that we simple add in smaller surrounding islands.

I myself have posted a few times that the islands should be put into a logical grid cluster so that we could add in new gmap levels even if they were to be filled with just water until they were developed.

a 5x5 gmap grid could contain all the current gmaps

also a 5x5 grid could very easily be expanded to 6x6 or even 7x7 to double the available maps to work on or add to. Instead of removing content that keeps the few players around we do have, This would add in additional content and exploration opportunities and roleplay availabilities. Not to mention the countless events that could be done with a few more gmaps connected together in grid.

My idea was officially rejected because I believe it was Bjorn didnt feel it was necessary, or that it was a little too much work. Even though it would entittle perhaps editing a few levels on the warplinks. It would be an extremely easy task that is only adding in blank water maps for now.

It's not just a space issue. It's also about kingdom activity.

What you're suggesting solves the space issue but not kingdom activity.

I must point out that in every attempt to add in new content, it has brought back more players to GK.

For how long?

That is the question now isn't it. After every small update it seems to have lasted a few days. But in larger updates upwards of months have been seen. Even holiday events have brought us back some players.

I would think its because those kingdoms are the least active therefor they have hardly anyone to vote for the other kingdoms and defend themselves? :confused:

Working as intended, no?

At least some of the Zormite members had the magnanimosity to vote that no kingdoms should be removed rather than participate in this race to the bottom.

I guess I kinda worded that wrong. :3

Actually I also voted that other kingdoms do not need to be removed.
All these kingdoms have history that goes back rather far... its hard to remove something like that without reprecussions.

I voted for the final option because i feel all the kingdoms are apart of GK history which is something i feel should be protected, however if one kingdom was to go in my opinion it should be forest.

1. Forest has been around for the least amount of time
2. It hasn't really much of a history in my mind i can't think of many major events it's been involved in.
3. Never really been active.
4. Was only added because the server was very popular at the time and there was room for another kingdom.

i suggest that graal kingdoms is taken off of the playerlist, has improvements done to it, and in 6-12 months, it's put back up. with the fact that it's been off so long, people start to miss it. when it finally does come back, they start to play it and grow attached to it.


:)