Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziro_of_the_Turks
But aren't you the king of Dustari?
So the leader of a roleplaying group has a negative attitude toward the practices on which the group is based AND the basis of the group itself?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stephen
That's pretty much how I feel about it right now. I'm not looking to establish the most active kingdom, or be the longest leader. Graal isn't worth that sort of commitment.
What I want to do is develop some new stuff for Dustari for FUTURE leaders, so kingdoms isn't so BORING.
|
That should have answered your question, but I guess you ignored it. What I want to do is enlist some competent individuals and set them in positions to maintain Dustari rather than trivial other factors.
You wouldn't build a rollercoaster with the mantra, "Screw structural integrity! I want to have fun
NOW!"? Well, the only kingdom I've seen hold any sort of noteworthy competence in the last while was CP, and that was because it had competent individuals controlling it.
I'll worry about setting it up withstand, then I'll worry about making it fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajinDragon
I'd support the delisting of all inactive members from ALL kingdoms, except for the fact that it looks kind of sad when all the kingdoms have a combined playercount of 20...  |
It's simply a representation of the state of Graal Kingdoms. I understand that Dustari will look "pathetic" in comparison to other kingdoms, but if they did the same thing it would be a similar playing field. Besides, it all comes down to war - and when it does, it's not how many 1-hit wonder newbs you've got... it's how many power houses. Power-house players can usually be counted on two hands for an entire server.