Eryst: Hiring!

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Oladahn

Server fail rate was every bit as high in '01

Not really. There were tons of servers back then. Not to mention there was no history of 10 years with no one coming out with a server prior, either.

[salesman]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Not really. There were tons of servers back then. Not to mention there was no history of 10 years with no one coming out with a server prior, either.

99/100 isn't much better than 10/10

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by salesman

99/100 isn't much better than 10/10

... O.o what?

[salesman]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

... O.o what?

You said the failure rate is much higher now than it was in 2001. When Oladahn said that they're actually about the same, you brought up the fact that there were more servers back then.

I said 99/100 servers failing isn't much better than 10/10 servers failing. Larger amount and history have nothing to do with rate of failure.

[Cubical]

Originally Posted by salesman

You said the failure rate is much higher now than it was in 2001. When Oladahn said that they're actually about the same, you brought up the fact that there were more servers back then.

I said 99/100 servers failing isn't much better than 10/10 servers failing. Larger amount and history have nothing to do with rate of failure.

People used to actually put effort into having a back story to their server. Many of them also got much further along than most of the current UC servers have.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by salesman

You said the failure rate is much higher now than it was in 2001. When Oladahn said that they're actually about the same, you brought up the fact that there were more servers back then.

I said 99/100 servers failing isn't much better than 10/10 servers failing. Larger amount and history have nothing to do with rate of failure.

That wasn't even my point. My point was back then, in 2001 there wasn't some long history of failed projects. Most projects were new, it was all a new environment. Graal had been around for a few years already but you hosted the servers yourself. Then P2P came around and people had to up their quality to get hosted. Regardless, the point is back then people could at least talk crap because they didn't know any better. Now it's been somewhat like 10 years and only one or two servers have actually made it(whether they pushed the envelope or not is another discussion). So really, given the track record of Graal as a whole everyone should just zip their mouth and if they need to prove something then do it by actually completing a server. Otherwise it's just tiring.

And 99/100 servers failing IS much better than 10/10. Why? Because there is actually a server making it.

[salesman]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

snip

I don't disagree.

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

And 99/100 servers failing IS much better than 10/10. Why? Because there is actually a server making it.

I guess, but in terms of percentages, no. I was just commenting on the fact that 9/10 is the same as 90/100 and "more servers back then" doesn't mean that the rate of failure was any different.

I honestly can't see any server making it, regardless of quality/originality/support. Graal doesn't have the player-count to handle another player world. The only way your server might "make it" is if it ends up replacing one of the existing worlds...a lot of good that will do

Originally Posted by Cubical

People used to actually put effort into having a back story to their server. Many of them also got much further along than most of the current UC servers have.

For example? People also didn't have the high quality games that we have now for roughly the same price (or cheaper) back then. I don't think it's so much a lack of quality work or effort from developers, but the fact that there's less players to attract, and the few that remain have much higher expectations.

[xXziroXx]

Originally Posted by salesman

I honestly can't see any server making it, regardless of quality/originality/support. Graal doesn't have the player-count to handle another player world. The only way your server might "make it" is if it ends up replacing one of the existing worlds...a lot of good that will do

I disagree. Another server or a few more would make all the difference in the world, as long as the people running it feels like putting any amount of effort into attracting players. Once we finish up on Maloria, I plan on utilizing Google Ads and numerous other ad services to attract people to atleast try playing. I firmly believe that Graal as a whole is a hosting platform for games, aka servers, and thus the management should treat their servers as stand alone games.