Tidbits!

[Spark910]

Originally posted by konidias


......
edit: The simple fact of the matter is, if the playerworld is boring and bland and basically just like every other playerworld already online, then it should only get limited time to be private... If a playerworld has new EVERYTHING, graphics, levels, scripts, tileset, systems, etc. I would imagine they would get more time.

Your assuming that your PW has a better team, your assuming your PW can do better, your assuming that yours will be gold, your assuming that everyone else is boring, your assuming that staff on other server do nothing, your assuming that your PW is ''leet'' (What a stupid word), your assuming they cant work. Most of the people are doing good enough and can meet the 4-6week left date, and so should you, you shouldn't get any extra treament, can either Aftershock or Nem post about this please.

[Kaimetsu]

Talented teams that stand a good chance of making a good server should get more time. It's only logical; Oasis has a chance to be a very nice asset to GraalOnline, but the average in-development PW will most likely fail on all counts. It's not about fairness, it's about good resource allocation.

[Spark910]

Yeah I suppose, but they should be given more time, but not loads more, they need to look at how long they have been up and waht they have to show for it.

[konidias]

Originally posted by Spark910


Your assuming that your PW has a better team, your assuming your PW can do better, your assuming that yours will be gold, your assuming that everyone else is boring, your assuming that staff on other server do nothing, your assuming that your PW is ''leet'' (What a stupid word), your assuming they cant work. Most of the people are doing good enough and can meet the 4-6week left date, and so should you, you shouldn't get any extra treament, can either Aftershock or Nem post about this please.

I AM ASSUMING NOTHING. Like I said before, Stefan believes Oasis is good enough to stay private, so that is all. I am only stating factual information. Who is benefiting from having Oasis shut down? Not me that's for sure. Not Stefan, and surely not any other pw in development because it's not like I'm filling some ever crucial server space that could be used by some other extraordinary playerworld.

Sure, shut down Oasis, then Oasis will be dead. Where is the logic in this? Oasis hasn't followed the path of a normal playerworld since the beginning, why should it start now? I didn't go through the PWA, Stefan put it up, Stefan likes it, and Stefan thinks it has potential. I can't finish Oasis in one month's time. I'm trying to make the best server ever to emerge from Graal. Want me to release Oasis 4 weeks from now with everything half-a**ed and incomplete/buggy? I don't.

You can't rush perfection. You might think Oasis is no different than other PW's... and if you do, I laugh at your poor judgement.

Hmmm let's see... boring playerworld with a bunch of 2k1 stuff and all the same old bodies and tiles, or a new playerworld with all new stuff, and brand new tiles and bodies?

By all means, if there is a playerworld that is better than mine and farther in development, then I will be willing to get shut down in 4 weeks, but I don't see that playerworld, so I don't see why I need a time limit.

[konidias]

Originally posted by Spark910
Yeah I suppose, but they should be given more time, but not loads more, they need to look at how long they have been up and waht they have to show for it.

Not really accurate... I've been working on 2k2 as gamemaster for 3 months so Oasis made little progress at that time. I'm helping Graal in one way or another, and that is all I care about.

[Spark910]

Originally posted by konidias


Not really accurate... I've been working on 2k2 as gamemaster for 3 months so Oasis made little progress at that time. I'm helping Graal in one way or another, and that is all I care about.

Okay then, I just think everyone should get the same sort of treatment, but thats just my opinion. No need to laugh at my judgment, I haven't seen any of oasis so I cant give a judgment.

Hmmm let's see... boring playerworld with a bunch of 2k1 stuff and all the same old bodies and tiles, or a new playerworld with all new stuff, and brand new tiles and bodies?

Considering ''I AM NOT ASSUMING ANYTHING'''' Just to let you know, thats an assumption.

[konidias]

Originally posted by Spark910


Okay then, I just think everyone should get the same sort of treatment, but thats just my opinion. No need to laugh at my judgment, I haven't seen any of oasis so I cant give a judgment.



Considering ''I AM NOT ASSUMING ANYTHING'''' Just to let you know, thats an assumption.

How is that an assumption exactly? I know the pw's being developed that are under private servers, and they aren't that impressive. It's an opinion, not an assumption, I'm not assuming it, I know what there is, and I formed my opinion of it.

[Spark910]

Yeah ok, I do agree with you that majority are not worth it. And yeah I doa gree Oassi will be good, but I jsut didn't liek you saying that all UC PWs are 2001 rip-offs, as some have put alot of hard work in.

[Darlene159]

Gosh Konidias, I like you and respect you, but you are coming off all full of yourself now...you make it sound like noone is making a PW better than yours...how could you know that? Have you seen every single project being made?
The thing that is really upsetting is that some of these people making these PW's are trying very hard, and working very hard...in the end, it may not be the greatest thing in the world, and they get bashed horribly. Then there are the other ones that are just doing it to get something up to feel all powerful (which they arent). Some of them stay in private for awhile, get put up, then change the whole blasted thing. People complain about it, but nothing is done about it.
From what I have seen, people come on these boards, and say their PW is going to be the greatest thing ever, and hype it up to a large degree (which is a mistake), then when it does go up, the players are disappointed.
I believe that the ones that will make it will be the ones where the creater of it does Levels, scripts, gfx all very well...lets face it, there are very little good staff now, they quit when p2p happened, and the really good ones are helping stefan, and there are way too many PW's online for the good staff that are out there.
I applaud each and every person who makes a real effort in making a PW, whether it makes it or not.

[zell12]

Konidias, go make your playworld offline, and then resubmit it and then finish your tinkering. There is no excuse for why you can't do it offline like all the other servers done.

[Milkdude99]

All PWs have to have a limit on time and the SAME time limit regardless of talent on the Team. This is called a Standard , you have to create a Standard for ALL to follow to be equal and fair to all. If this is not done it sets the stage for discrimination, something Graal does not want to do or even get started in. It's like the old saying goes "the strongest will survive". Fair maybe not but then again neither is life or Business for that matter, and after all this is a Business (Graal). You yourself may not think its fair, but for all involved it is because the "Standard" of the time allowed dictates and not any one person or persons. No one not even Stefan or Unixmad once a Standard has been set should vary from it unless they decide to change the Standard for all. This will ensure the equality for all and something I'm sure they want to do. If your PW cannot make it within the time frame permitted by the "Standard " set then do not submit it till you are sure that it can be done in that time frame. It is better to wait till your PW is ready to meet the challenge than to rush to submit your PW when it is not ready and doomed to failure. If you lack the Staff to get it ready by the time frame given , then you also lack the quaified Staff to run it. No matter how good you are or the one or two you may have working for you; lack of Staff will cause failure for the PW regardless of the excellent content it may or maynot have.

[Jeff]

First off, I don't think level count should be a factor in reviews, as one superb level with lots of stuff in it is better than 200 bland ones with plagiarized newmain content.

Second off, Oasis looks to be more of a gold server in development than a playerworld. Not sure about 2230. Oasis has so few staff (and thus low bandwidth) that there is little or nothing to lose in keeping it up.

Third off, I agree that storyline should not even be a factor in reviews. Most playerworlds don't need a storyline, and most that have them have bad storylines. Points should be taken off for a poor storyline, but there should be no penalty for lacking one. Basically there should be a rule to the effect of "Have a good storyline or don't bother, as bad storylines lose you points under creativity."

[Genesis]

Mursamenia how ever u spell it
Cira Baen
Era


all these pw's looked like gold servers

did they have servers like Oasis did for so long???

no if they did those other pws would have been up now

[Milkdude99]

Originally posted by Jeff
First off, I don't think level count should be a factor in reviews, as one superb level with lots of stuff in it is better than 200 bland ones with plagiarized newmain content.

Second off, Oasis looks to be more of a gold server in development than a playerworld. Not sure about 2230. Oasis has so few staff (and thus low bandwidth) that there is little or nothing to lose in keeping it up.

Third off, I agree that storyline should not even be a factor in reviews. Most playerworlds don't need a storyline, and most that have them have bad storylines. Points should be taken off for a poor storyline, but there should be no penalty for lacking one. Basically there should be a rule to the effect of "Have a good storyline or don't bother, as bad storylines lose you points under creativity."

A standard of 200 levels have been given, if you cannot make 200 really good levels with content then don't submit a PW. A PW with 10 excellent levels is just an absurd concept, players will soon get bored with a limited level PW with few levels online (under 200). Issue here is all the levels need to be excellent with interesting content to entice the player if not the PW does not need to go up at all. Lowering standards for Graal is a backward step and not something Graal is wanting or willing to do, this will limit the mass making of sorely limited PWs with mediocre or just plain bad ideas and levels. Any idea is bad if it is already been done to the point of players are tired of looking at it and want something new to do. Yes I agree some ideas players like and will not get bored of; but a PW that consist of nothing but content of already used ideas is redundancy and does nothing to improve Graal.

[Kaimetsu]

Originally posted by Milkdude99
All PWs have to have a limit on time and the SAME time limit regardless of talent on the Team. This is called a Standard , you have to create a Standard for ALL to follow to be equal and fair to all.

Why? How does it benefit Graal? Think of each playerworld as a business venture. Do all business ventures get the same funding? Heck no. This isn't about fairness, this is about doing what is best for Graal. Oasis has far more potential worth to Graal than the average playerworld so it's logical that they would want to give it extra priority.

Originally posted by zell12
Konidias, go make your playworld offline, and then resubmit it and then finish your tinkering. There is no excuse for why you can't do it offline like all the other servers done.

Presumably you don't understand the client/server dynamic. Stefan does, which is why Oasis is still online.

Originally posted by Milkdude99
A standard of 200 levels have been given, if you cannot make 200 really good levels with content then don't submit a PW. A PW with 10 excellent levels is just an absurd concept

Is it? Again I state that, with enough effort, I could use a single level to make a world far superior to N-Pulse that could entertain ten times as many people. And I wouldn't even lay a tile