I doubt very much that this scheme of yours would lead to "quality servers". It never did before, and nowadays it's even more difficult a decent server offline.

I love to develop, if you check to my first ever post I've attached my first map I ever made.

Sometimes I do wish that I got payed to work, but this is only the beggining for me; I take my skills from what I've learned from Graal Online and I use them in real life.

Shh dont ruin my master plan >_>!

Nah I make levels sometimes but they're usually offline. And yeah you're right, I go inactive on purpose because I lose interest and you know, become unmotivated. For one reason or another. Not my fault playerworlds suck these days, is it?

People seem to be blaming the developers for the current playerworld quality, and so in that sence it IS your fault, along with the rest of us. If we can't create better quality work, then the playerworld system in a whole is doomed I think. Because it's up to us to keep things going. If playerworlds continue to stink, then I don't think GO itself will put that much work into improving over-all quality (unless the PWA steps in) And so they might just get removed all together at some point, in favor of maybe 2 classic-style GO run servers, where they can control the content and staff better.

Just some thoughts.

You're just maliciously attacking me. I was, yes, but you should know that making original levels that are nicely detailed takes time. I don't have that time to waste just to prove myself.

Huh? How do you figure? You're not even backing up your claims with fact. You're just saying stuff.
I have better things to do. I don't do stuff unless I take it under my responsibility list. Showing off isn't going to make that list any time soon.

Playerworld quality has a lot to do with communities these days. I mean whats the point of making a sexy overworld if you only have 12 players and know you wont get more? It's an issue for many playerworlds. Look at UN, their levels suck and they're still number 1. What can I say?

Motivation is a major factor for, I believe, all of us. For me, theres no hope in graal until a nice playerworld comes along.

Dont think so =o

:)

I never mentioned anything about not hosting all those lousy playerworlds, did I? No. It would be an option for people not to have to pay all the fees for a playerworld, but will be able to put one online granted it is good quality.

But it still would be a worthwhile alternative, wouldn't it? Even if it doesn't work, GO doesn't lose any money.

No, but they would be losing an opportunity to make money from charging to host servers.

Jeez, man. Don't you understand the simplest economics? If you have less income then you will usually have less money.

But they enlarge the chance of an opportunity for them to lure more players to play Graal.

C'mon, dude. Step back and think about it.

1) The probability that a good, attractive playerworld will be created would not be increased by any large amount, if at all.
2) The loss of income would be significant.

If GO want to spend lots of money on a good playerworld, they should just pay me to make something.

I guess I'm not being clear enough.

Developer A makes a playerworld, but does not have the money to put it online.
Developer A contacts Unixmad/Stefan/whatever and asks if they can host his playerworld if it passes a certain level of quality (something like GK quality).
If the demands are met, the playerworld can go online.

Now I guess the tricky part kicks in here. The playerworld would be, at this point, without doubt a good, amusing playerworld. And so, people get an account so they can play it.

I guess you are right on the point that GO will not make any money if the playerworld is classic. But, if the PW has the quality of a Gold server and is put under the Gold tab, then it is another reason for people to upgrade to Gold/VIP, and so it could be means of making money.

But nothing will ensure that your playerworld is a succes. I presume this success is the risk factor here. The 'alternative' playerworlds that GO would pass would be about the quality of what you would be able to make. And here comes the risk: Will the playerworld persuade enough players to upgrade to gold to make up for the 100$ fine to host one? If it does, then Graal probably has made money. But if Graal pays you to make a playerworld, then there is that risk factor too. Perhaps your playerworld is very good, but players are just not interested in it - then Graal has made a loss.

Of course, there are other advantages. As soon as your playerworld starts attracting less players up to the point that it isn't profitable anymore, it can be taken away like that *snap*. This is not the case with paid playerworlds.

agh, gotta go I'll try to be more clear later.

So this would not be a replacement for the current system, but rather a supplement?

I think they would already accept super-great playerworld material without charging for it. It's just that nobody has submitted any.

Exactly. Replacing the current system with the one I proposed would as you all stated be a very bad move of GO.

Well, they already do so on a small scale with P2P servers by allowing players to submit GFX.

And I submit that they also do so with playerworlds. Or, at least, they would if somebody offered something good.