Graal Kingdoms Kingdoms - Page 2

Googi · #41 03-27-2009, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snitch

I would think its because those kingdoms are the least active therefor they have hardly anyone to vote for the other kingdoms and defend themselves?

At least some of the Zormite members had the magnanimosity to vote that no kingdoms should be removed rather than participate in this race to the bottom.

Snitch · #42 03-27-2009, 11:13 PM

I guess I kinda worded that wrong. :3

ReBorn_Spirit · #43 03-27-2009, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Googi

At least some of the Zormite members had the magnanimosity to vote that no kingdoms should be removed rather than participate in this race to the bottom.

Actually I also voted that other kingdoms do not need to be removed.
All these kingdoms have history that goes back rather far... its hard to remove something like that without reprecussions.

Craigus · #44 03-28-2009, 02:10 AM

I voted for the final option because i feel all the kingdoms are apart of GK history which is something i feel should be protected, however if one kingdom was to go in my opinion it should be forest.

1. Forest has been around for the least amount of time
2. It hasn't really much of a history in my mind i can't think of many major events it's been involved in.
3. Never really been active.
4. Was only added because the server was very popular at the time and there was room for another kingdom.

Elizabeth · #45 03-28-2009, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix_Xenophobe

cool story.

so what do you suggest?

i suggest that graal kingdoms is taken off of the playerlist, has improvements done to it, and in 6-12 months, it's put back up. with the fact that it's been off so long, people start to miss it. when it finally does come back, they start to play it and grow attached to it.

Gothika · #46 03-28-2009, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

i suggest that graal kingdoms is taken off of the playerlist, has improvements done to it, and in 6-12 months, it's put back up. with the fact that it's been off so long, people start to miss it. when it finally does come back, they start to play it and grow attached to it.

You suggest that Stefan loses money?.. you've got great business acumen.

Elizabeth · #47 03-28-2009, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothika

You suggest that Stefan loses money?.. you've got great business acumen.

people just move to other servers when their server is shut down for a period of time. only a few quit.

cyan3 · #48 03-28-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

people just move to other servers when their server is shut down for a period of time. only a few quit.

What will happen to the users who have already paid for gold time?

xXziroXx · #49 03-28-2009, 11:18 AM

Instead of removing a kingdom, what about merging two of the kingdoms into two of the others, together with a rename to suit the new alliance between them?

For examples...

Crescent Republic (Zormite + CP)
Dustarian Alliance (Dustari + Forest.... kudos to anyone able to think up a better name >.<)

Not only would it sustain the current themes and histories of the kingdoms, but it would introduce more interesting ways to RP and lead/organize the alliances.

[email protected] · #50 03-28-2009, 02:12 PM

As It looks now Is Forest losing, Right?
Will the Forest Bow/wand be rare then? or they wil be putted intro an onthere shop?

BigBear3 · #51 03-28-2009, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyan3

The leaders for Zormite and Forest are very inactive.

Let's change that.

Ravenblade1979 · #52 03-28-2009, 03:56 PM

Merging a few might be better in the long run but then there would be a fight on who keeps the K right.

xXziroXx · #53 03-28-2009, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenblade1979

Merging a few might be better in the long run but then there would be a fight on who keeps the K right.

An alliance would probably have 2-3 leaders, acting as a council.

Draenin · #54 03-28-2009, 04:37 PM

It's probably wiser to combine them, but the kingdoms that have always been pretty inactive are Forest and Zormite. Samurai only went inactive after Nayoko left and Reiko did a tag wipe.

Elizabeth · #55 03-28-2009, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyan3

What will happen to the users who have already paid for gold time?

there's another gold server

Sky · #56 03-28-2009, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

there's another gold server

That has nothing good.

I agree to the merging thing. That sounds like a nifty idea. =o

cyan3 · #57 03-28-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

there's another gold server

Not everybody wants to play Zone.

Elizabeth · #58 03-28-2009, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyan3

Not everybody wants to play Zone.

there's about 100 other servers.. playerworlds & etc. i'm sure you'll find one that you like.

Felix_Xenophobe · #59 03-28-2009, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

there's about 100 other servers.. playerworlds & etc. i'm sure you'll find one that you like.

Once again..
Are you serious?
100 other servers? Are you expecting us to play some crappy UC server while GK is undergoing maintenance?

Elizabeth · #60 03-28-2009, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix_Xenophobe

Once again..
Are you serious?
100 other servers? Are you expecting us to play some crappy UC server while GK is undergoing maintenance?

i'm serious. you don't have to play "some crappy uc server", there are lots of great servers

Felix_Xenophobe · #61 03-28-2009, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

i'm serious. you don't have to play "some crappy uc server", there are lots of great servers

Name 10 of these 100 please.

Elizabeth · #62 03-28-2009, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix_Xenophobe

Name 10 of these 100 please.

i wouldn't know, i only play 3 servers, but i'm sure that there's atleast 10.

Felix_Xenophobe · #63 03-28-2009, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

i wouldn't know, i only play 3 servers, but i'm sure that there's atleast 10.

I'm just gonna stop reading whatever you post from now on.

Hatred89 · #64 03-29-2009, 12:28 AM

Oh, man I found out yesterday you can vote for two options when taking this poll. Lol great after I send the thread to a handful of people... Haha dang thats like 5 free votes down the drain atleast.

cyan3 · #65 03-29-2009, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix_Xenophobe

I'm just gonna stop reading whatever you post from now on.

Good idea.

ReBorn_Spirit · #66 03-29-2009, 01:37 AM

Yea the poll doesnt tell anyone the real story when they can vote twice.

Polls never really did tell the true story as its far too easy to just bribe someone or just simply log in with a different account.

Doesnt really matter though I think in some way or another we have all decided on things like this. Some people just hate certain kingdoms which doesnt help voting. Its not just some indescriminate survey like it should have been, not a poll open to the public.

Elizabeth · #67 03-29-2009, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

Yea the poll doesnt tell anyone the real story when they can vote twice.

Polls never really did tell the true story as its far too easy to just bribe someone or just simply log in with a different account.

Doesnt really matter though I think in some way or another we have all decided on things like this. Some people just hate certain kingdoms which doesnt help voting. Its not just some indescriminate survey like it should have been, not a poll open to the public.

choices with circles next to them to click means that you can only chose one, however, choices with squares next to them to click means that you can vote multiple times.

cyan3 · #68 03-29-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

choices with circles next to them to click means that you can only chose one, however, choices with squares next to them to click means that you can vote multiple times.

The basic difference between radio buttons and check boxes.

AbsoluteMonkey · #69 03-29-2009, 05:36 PM

I've posted this in another thread, but I want to iterate it here as well.
If each kingdom had access to some type of EM tools, such as the EMs themselves do. And these events can only be joined (programatically) by the kingdom members that EM is in, then a kingdom leader can either himself or appoint someone to handle such things and then can create events more often for their members. The kingdom specific EMs could then have to compete in events dedicated to themselves to earn access to more event games. For instance a new kingdom EM might be only able to access musical chairs, but through EM events he/she can earn something like waterglass. This would also promote the hiring of kingdom EMs between the kingdoms, paying more for EMs who have a larger arsenal of games in their 'toolbox'.
Players would then base their kingdom choice on who keeps them busy with activities, not based on which kingdom is the 'coolest' or which kingdom has the most popular player who has the 'best' equipment that they might one day want to give away so everyone wants to be their buddy in hopes that they might get great stuff for free one day.

cyan3 · #70 03-29-2009, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbsoluteMonkey

I've posted this in another thread, but I want to iterate it here as well.
If each kingdom had access to some type of EM tools, such as the EMs themselves do. And these events can only be joined (programatically) by the kingdom members that EM is in, then a kingdom leader can either himself or appoint someone to handle such things and then can create events more often for their members. The kingdom specific EMs could then have to compete in events dedicated to themselves to earn access to more event games. For instance a new kingdom EM might be only able to access musical chairs, but through EM events he/she can earn something like waterglass. This would also promote the hiring of kingdom EMs between the kingdoms, paying more for EMs who have a larger arsenal of games in their 'toolbox'.
Players would then base their kingdom choice on who keeps them busy with activities, not based on which kingdom is the 'coolest' or which kingdom has the most popular player who has the 'best' equipment that they might one day want to give away so everyone wants to be their buddy in hopes that they might get great stuff for free one day.

I don't really see the point of Kingdoms Events Masters. Kingdom events can easily be hosted without Events Master tools.

AbsoluteMonkey · #71 03-29-2009, 06:37 PM

Musical chairs (lame but fun)
waterglass
Raffle (I'd like to be able to raffle off stuff to my members)
Possibly spar, I'm unsure if members can spar amongst themselves.

FenixTheBanished · #72 03-29-2009, 06:51 PM

I know this is a little late, but I cant believe that this is even being considered. If you want anything with the Kingdoms to be useful its called you have to first have people playing Graal Kingdoms actively and have a player base, which only new content, better current content, and more things for people to do will be able to cure our current problem. So if there is a problem with inactive kingdoms, its called attract more players with more content.

cyan3 · #73 03-29-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbsoluteMonkey

Musical chairs (lame but fun)
waterglass
Raffle (I'd like to be able to raffle off stuff to my members)
Possibly spar, I'm unsure if members can spar amongst themselves.

Doing normal events for a kingdom is lazy. Kingdom members won't turn up for kingdom events that are boring and normal. You have to put some thought into making kingdom events.

MajinDragon · #74 03-30-2009, 07:17 PM

I voted Zormite, they're the odd ball of the group. I could have easily been swayed by the kingdom i lothe - Pirates - But chose to decide fairly.

Why not forest? I feel indifferent about them, i understand they've had some diplomacy issues but they have good active ambassidors.

Zormite... I can only think of Fenix and in the end, they're all just fishes

Googi · #75 04-03-2009, 06:17 AM

Are we going to get some kind of verdict on whether any kingdoms are going to be removed or what?

Tigairius · #76 04-03-2009, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Googi

Are we going to get some kind of verdict on whether any kingdoms are going to be removed or what?

I'm still not entirely sure, was sort of just wanting to get your guys' opinions before making any sort of action.

I think I'm going to try a few more things before resorting to this.

View Poll Results: Which kingdom(s) do you think should be removed?
Dustari	8	14.04%
Zormite	26	45.61%
Samurai	21	36.84%
Forest	28	49.12%
Pirates	11	19.30%
None, I think our kingdoms are fine.	10	17.54%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll