What classic's all about.

[Hezzy002]

You can't make global guilds any more?

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Hezzy002

You can't make global guilds any more?

You can, they just get stuck in the "pending" list forever or until removed regardless of obtaining 10 members. I recall it being said this is a result of some technical error which is being ignored, rather than just the lack of a guilds admin. You could also say this is false advertisement.

[NicoX]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

You can, they just get stuck in the "pending" list forever or until removed regardless of obtaining 10 members. I recall it being said this is a result of some technical error which is being ignored, rather than just the lack of a guilds admin. You could also say this is false advertisement.

Nobody is updating the lists anymore, you have to send a mail to the support to get ur guild activated, which is just dumb and time consuming. I guess GraalOnline needs a new Global Guild Admin. Whats wrong giving someone permission to activate pending guilds and update the lists?

Why unixmad/Stefan making this to a big deal hiring a new Global Staff. I dont understand it honestly...

[Crono]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

These are targeted towards hooking the interest of new Graal players. They may not be to your, older or more casual players liking, but are part of a strategy intended to bring players to the game. This means there would potentially be more players to spar/pk/participate within events, which is a good thing.

No, you assume that a forced storyline + questing structure is going to draw more players in than a server without forced storyline + questing structure. That can't logically make sense, as you even specifically stated that it may not be to the casual player's liking. Casual is where the large chunk of any given playerbase will be. Therefore it's not a "positive" point going to Classic vs Era as opposed to not mentioning it at all.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Classic pre dates global guilds. Many of the best known global guilds were originally local guilds on Classic, restoring a system which prevents multi-guilding will resurrect some of the factors which made guilds great in the first place. Right now it's technically impossible to even create a new global guild, as well as transfer leadership or be disabled for inactivity. Global guild leaders will be able to create their guild locally, criteria permitting.

You could still multi-guild in the past with local guilds, anyway, so forcing people to only one guild isn't really a selling point. And no, it didn't make guilds great in the first place. What gave you that idea?

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Crono

No, you assume that a forced storyline + questing structure is going to draw more players in than a server without forced storyline + questing structure. That can't logically make sense, as you even specifically stated that it may not be to the casual player's liking. Casual is where the large chunk of any given playerbase will be. Therefore it's not a "positive" point going to Classic vs Era as opposed to not mentioning it at all.

When you consider that pretty much every Graal server provides little to no direction to new players, and that there hasn't been an established server with a significant storyline since 2004, ofcourse there's going to be a bias in favour of the casual elements compared to questing, because community is a reflection of the content at hand. Think back to 2000, a very large portion of players were Zelda fanatics, even after Graal was renamed from Zelda Online it stood out as a Zelda clone. A lot of players have even said they only found Graal in the first place by searching for an online version of Zelda.

I know very well that the game does boil down to community based content, and this is the gameplay players end up experiencing far more than anything else. For a first time Graal player who is entirely alien to the game however, it's a lot less inviting and more difficult to enjoy compared to designed purposeful content. Expecting new players to wander around aimlessly in order to familiarise themself with the game is very hit and miss, instilling the idea that there's at least something for a player to do and showing them how to get to it increases the probability of them staying online, without necessarily prohibiting their free will.

In Classic's case, the storyline is only forced on players to a very small extent, and does not put players at a disadvantage within competitive gameplay. On the subject of logic, this wouldn't be of any significant detriment to casual style players, there would only be benefit.

Originally Posted by Crono

You could still multi-guild in the past with local guilds

What about before the introduction of global guilds?
I'm not entirely sure to be honest, but it's the impression I'm under. It may well be that multi-guilding became a lot more difficult for guild owners to monitor after the introduction of global guilds. Now you can't even see a list of guilds a player is in like was possible in the past.

Originally Posted by Crono

so forcing people to only one guild isn't really a selling point

I didn't say it was the sole selling point, there's a lot of advantages a local system would provide, mainly full creative freedom and an in game control panel. I didn't say we would necessarily restrict players to one guild either, with a local guilds system we could implement different types of guild, limiting players to only one competitive guild, while allowing them to form families for example.

Originally Posted by Crono

And no, it didn't make guilds great in the first place. What gave you that idea?

I didn't say prohibiting multi-guilding was the sole reason for this. I was referring to a local guilds system in general. Every guild, plus the amount of guilds would be relevant to the server, which would have more legitimacy than an out dated, massively inflated, poorly maintained system.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

When you consider that pretty much every Graal server provides little to no direction to new players, and that there hasn't been an established server with a significant storyline since 2004, ofcourse there's going to be a bias in favour of the casual elements compared to questing, because community is a reflection of the content at hand. Think back to 2000, a very large portion of players were Zelda fanatics, even after Graal was renamed from Zelda Online it stood out as a Zelda clone. A lot of players have even said they only found Graal in the first place by searching for an online version of Zelda.

I know very well that the game does boil down to community based content, and this is the gameplay players end up experiencing far more than anything else. For a first time Graal player who is entirely alien to the game however, it's a lot less inviting and more difficult to enjoy compared to designed purposeful content. Expecting new players to wander around aimlessly in order to familiarise themself with the game is very hit and miss, instilling the idea that there's at least something for a player to do and showing them how to get to it increases the probability of them staying online, without necessarily prohibiting their free will.

In Classic's case, the storyline is only forced on players to a very small extent, and does not put players at a disadvantage within competitive gameplay. On the subject of logic, this wouldn't be of any significant detriment to casual style players, there would only be benefit.

That's all fine and dandy except in the original post you specifically stated that it may not cater to the casual player, which makes all of this null and void. That's how logical arguments work my friend. I could go on about how a forced storyline goes against what a Graal player desires but that could constitute its own thread.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

What about before the introduction of global guilds?
I'm not entirely sure to be honest, but it's the impression I'm under. It may well be that multi-guilding became a lot more difficult for guild owners to monitor after the introduction of global guilds. Now you can't even see a list of guilds a player is in like was possible in the past.

You could still multi-guild, it was never an issue. An authoritive figure in a guild would PM an Admin or sometimes dedicated Guilds Admin on the server to edit the guild's .txt file to add a particular player and that's it. You also need to remember that families liked to have their own tags too, which could be confused with multi-guilding.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

I didn't say it was the sole selling point, there's a lot of advantages a local system would provide, mainly full creative freedom and an in game control panel. I didn't say we would necessarily restrict players to one guild either, with a local guilds system we could implement different types of guild, limiting players to only one competitive guild, while allowing them to form families for example.

You wouldn't have to disable global guilds for this. Zodiac, for example, still allows global guilds, contains local guilds, and had a "competitive" nation-based guild system going on all at the same time. I'm all for more player control over guilds, especially since global guilds are being handled in such a horrible fashion. p.s "I didn't say we would necessarily restrict players to one guild either" <- you implied that by stating no multi-guilding without elaborating in the previous posts.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

I didn't say prohibiting multi-guilding was the sole reason for this. I was referring to a local guilds system in general. Every guild, plus the amount of guilds would be relevant to the server, which would have more legitimacy than an out dated, massively inflated, poorly maintained system.

You implied local guilds + enforced anti-multi-guilding measures somehow made guilds greater in the past which is not true. Guilds always relied, and still do, on player loyalty. You can't enforce loyalty. It's something players decide for themselves. There are global guilds now that don't have multi-guilding members, and the past was no different.