Graal Kingdoms' Current Status: Terrible

[Googi]

As far as I can tell, Stephen seems most interested in shaping 2K2 to match his desires of what he most wants the server to be like, as opposed to what the players most want the the server to be like or what is the most marketable, although he's probably convinced himself that those are the same thing.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the same could be true of Tig as well.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Googi

As far as I can tell, Stephen seems most interested in shaping 2K2 to match his desires of what he most wants the server to be like, as opposed to what the players most want the the server to be like or what is the most marketable, although he's probably convinced himself that those are the same thing.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the same could be true of Tig as well.

The players have consistently shown that they do not know what they want. Obviously any production released would receive feedback - you are familiar with this term, si?

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Stephen

The players have consistently shown that they do not know what they want. Obviously any production released would receive feedback - you are familiar with this term, si?

This is not an excuse to do whatever you want. It's a reason to examine people's behaviour and try to figure out why players play the games they do. To begin with, trying to use a storyline to attract/retain players is extremely stupid. It's even stupider than trying to use traditional quests. Storylines belong in traditional console RPGs, not MMOs. What MMO has ever attracted or retained players using storyline? Storyline is essentially a method of trying to force the players to do what you want rather than letting them do what they want, and by their nature MMOs can't compete with console RPGs in terms of storyline anyways.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Googi

This is not an excuse to do whatever you want. It's a reason to examine people's behaviour and try to figure out why players play the games they do. To begin with, trying to use a storyline to attract/retain players is extremely stupid. It's even stupider than trying to use traditional quests. Storylines belong in traditional console RPGs, not MMOs. What MMO has ever attracted or retained players using storyline? Storyline is essentially a method of trying to force the players to do what you want rather than letting them do what they want, and by their nature MMOs can't compete with console RPGs in terms of storyline anyways.

As I said I would be relying on feedback - which you get plenty of on Graal. Your storyline point is moot; I'm not approaching it in the tradtional sense for the exact reason you pointed out - which I've already said I do not like. It's not typical for you make posts which haven't been considered, which strikes me as odd.

Originally Posted by Robin

Instead of arguing amongst yourselves, why not just make some good ideas, and present them to Stefan. I think Stefan is very close to the development of GK in particular and Bjorn active or not, Stefan is the one to go to, if you want to discuss change.

It's very patronizing to strole into a situation which has been going on for the last 7 months and assume these rudimentary tasks have not already been done. Especially when, with the slightest of research, you would see that they have been done.

I will do the same, so you can understand how annoyed I feel.

You should always think before you post! Here are some excellent rules to follow!

• Do some research!
• Consider the benefits or shortcomings of the information gathered via research!
• Get to know the situation before you come to a conclusion!
• Do not make wordly statements without following the above steps!

I think patronizing describes the feeling.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Stephen

As I said I would be relying on feedback - which you get plenty of on Graal. Your storyline point is moot; I'm not approaching it in the tradtional sense for the exact reason you pointed out - which I've already said I do not like. It's not typical for you make posts which haven't been considered, which strikes me as odd.

It's very patronizing to strole into a situation which has been going on for the last 7 months and assume these rudimentary tasks have not already been done. Especially when, with the slightest of research, you would see that they have been done.

I will do the same, so you can understand how annoyed I feel.

You should always think before you post! Here are some excellent rules to follow!

• Do some research!
• Consider the benefits or shortcomings of the information gathered via research!
• Get to know the situation before you come to a conclusion!
• Do not make wordly statements without following the above steps!

I think patronizing describes the feeling.

Not the person you want to try and patronize really am I Stephen?

I'm not picking sides. You're on your own, both of you.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Robin

Not the person you want to try and patronize really am I Stephen?

I'm not especially concerned, to be frank.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Stephen

As I said I would be relying on feedback - which you get plenty of on Graal.

Simply making a general statement that you'll "rely on feedback" doesn't mean much, especially since you, for some reason, consider surprise important which means that your methodology is one that isn't conducive to generating meaningful feedback. Suppose you get negative feedback, do you abandon what you were doing and try to do something else, or do you continue down the same path believing that success lies at the end of it? What method is there for provably determining which option is the better one in any given case? I can't think of one. Can you?

Originally Posted by Stephen

I'm not approaching it in the tradtional sense for the exact reason you pointed out - which I've already said I do not like.

I don't see how that makes my point moot. Why should anybody believe an approach is effective simply because it's non-typical? If anything, it's reason for even greater suspicion since what is typical is usually typical because it is effective, and more importantly, what is not typical is usually not typical because it is ineffective.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Googi

Simply making a general statement that you'll "rely on feedback" doesn't mean much, especially since you, for some reason, consider surprise important which means that your methodology is one that isn't conducive to generating meaningful feedback. Suppose you get negative feedback, do you abandon what you were doing and try to do something else, or do you continue down the same path believing that success lies at the end of it? What method is there for provably determining which option is the better one in any given case? I can't think of one. Can you?

My interests do lie in a certain "shock" factor, yes. But it's the style of shock which is very different - it relies on a lot of details. So in a sense its "modular" shock. So tweaking it to please the majority shouldn't be difficult - if it doesn't to begin with.

Originally Posted by Googi

I don't see how that makes my point moot. Why should anybody believe an approach is effective simply because it's non-typical? If anything, it's reason for even greater suspicion since what is typical is usually typical because it is effective, and more importantly, what is not typical is usually not typical because it is ineffective.

I'm not going to explain the details of my intended storyline devices, so you have all the reason you like to be suspicious. But, given the chance, I will release some and you will have lots to decide upon at that point.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Stephen

My interests do lie in a certain "shock" factor, yes. But it's the style of shock which is very different - it relies on a lot of details. So in a sense its "modular" shock. So tweaking it to please the majority shouldn't be difficult - if it doesn't to begin with.

You say this is how things will be, but you don't give any examples to prove it.