Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGodAngelo
You obviously don't understand so i'm not going to bother refuting you, i might consider it if you could go a minute without resorting to insults for a lack of a proper argument.
|
I don't understand? lol, ok man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ffcmike
Oh ok I guess all of those old players who thought Tyhm's Classic was a relic and the greatest designed server Graal has ever seen are null and void. I guess the 150 players who have completed the castle quest, the 300 who have done the tomb quest and the 560 who have done Zol's toilet (not bad for a UC server) are null and void.
Now I think about it casual players are null and void on iPhone considering most players are idling in Graal City asking for a girlfriend or for someone to adopt them. Guild forts and spar arenas aren't catering to their desires right?
That's how logical arguments work my friend.
|
I see no logical argument in what you posted. My very first post was poking fun at the fact that you consider a forced storyline + questing structure as a positive point, while even you responded that casual players (that constitute the majority of any given playerbase) and older players ("such as myself") might not find it appealing.
If you want to talk numbers, Classic was the de-facto server and held onto a large proportion of the playercount prior to full-p2p back in 2002. When full p2p was finally unleashed, its playercount inevitably dwindled. As early as 2003 servers like Era (which had no quests), UN (really horrible quests), and Valikorlia (no quests) dominated the top 3 server spots. I don't know if you're aware of this or not but there was never a golden age of questing outside of Classic on any servers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ffcmike
Is it really that difficult to conceive the idea there can be a strategy for bringing players to the game (by actually presenting it as a game with a purpose, and providing direction), as well as a strategy for keeping players on the game (by having competitions and activites on a level playing field), working in tandem with eachother?
Spar/PK/Event type content is much easier to develop, hence why it is in relative abundance, and already quite strongly positioned on Graal.
Solid permanent content such as Quests are much harder to develop, hence why it is something of a lost art on Graal, and so a large un-tapped reserve.
Once again, the storyline is only prohibiting competitive content to an incredibly small extent. Unless you think legitimately new players will log on for the first time, head straight to the spar arena and enjoy getting slaughtered it is not causing any harm. The idea that "no one cares about quests" is utterly ridiculous, it would be like me saying "no one cares about buying hats", which is something I find quite funny, yet clearly it is something some players care about on other servers.
|
I'm not against having a storyline, structured method of introducing new players to servers, quests, or any of that. Forced quests themselves aren't even that bad. Forcing a storyline + questing onto players on a multiplayer game, however, isn't ideal. To describe why I'd have to get into the whole characters-being-forms-of-self-expression and how a forced generally linear storyline alienates their avatars. It's why you never have forced storyline on other multiplayer games unless they compliment the normal gameplay. You claim quests are permanent content, but they're only done once and never touched again by a player. I also never claimed that no one cares about quests, I claimed that over a decade of interaction with players from dozens of servers indicates that quests are not important. Logically they are simply obstacles to the "end game".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ffcmike
Keeping global guilds enabled would render some of the advantages of local guilds redundant, and this would also require a greater amount of work. Using one system allows us to keep all guilds relevant to the server, ensure all guilds are created to the same requirements, provide the opportunity to obtain perks to all guilds, and provide all guilds with the same tools and capabilities.
Preventing multi-guilding can just as easily mean limiting players to 3 guilds as opposed to 1. That was just your assumption.
This is a romantic idea in theory, but in practise has been complained about for a decade. Having a system which enforces it will mean guilds have to put in effort to recruit indecisive players over other guilds, which is more conducive to a competitive environment.
|
Bro, if you have an awesome local guild system planned out there's nothing wrong with that. The problem I had was the multi-guilding prevention coupled with local guilds. Your posts only stated that multi-guilding would be prevented. Being in more than one guild is multi-guilding. My assumption was based on the information you gave me.
People will multi-guild if the guilds in question are weak, that's just how it works. There are some guilds that never had or still don't have issues with multi-guilding (Veracity, MHX, TNR, BTK, SNC, US, and so many more) and some guilds that were only built as either alliances or "jokes". If someone is legit multi-guilding in your guild, it's a sign of disloyalty and you simply kick them out if you have a problem with it. That's how it's been for so long.
I think the biggest issue with local-only guilds is if they are defying the "real" global guild's members & hierarchy.