What classic's all about.

[Cubical]

Dang tldr; got half way through reading on my phone before my eyeballs shriveled up. Anyways, I like the idea of forced quest as long as they are challenging and not repetitive. I feel more attached to my player whenever I beat that last quest and I know I can just log on and do whatever I want until the next one is released. That's one of the reasons I've been playing world of Warcraft for so long. I can get on and nerd rage for a bit and come back whenever new content is released or for events.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Arrogance is not a persuasive argument.

I don't commit to an argument if my logic isn't solid, not anymore anyway.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

See, by inserting the phrase "I don't consider", that is distinguishing the belief as an individual opinion, as opposed to stating it as a matter of fact like with the original post. I can't argue against questing not being a positive point for yourself, nor do I hold it against you personally, I can however argue against that being the same for many of those who considered Classic as their home server in the past, as well as many of those who have played through the existing quests.

I didn't acknowledge that in the way you are insinuating though, you're twisting my words entirely out of context, and picking and choosing different parts to suit your argument. I acknowledged that in the context of an existing purely casual player, and alluded to the fact that questing is primarily targeted at legitimately new Graal players.

I think there's a misunderstanding here, we've both acknowledged that a forced storyline + quest narrows down the server's appeal. How is narrowing down your server's appeal a positive point? It's such a stupid thing (the actual point we're arguing over) to revolve this entire thing around but that's all it really is.

I didn't take what you said out of context, it was completely within context.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

These servers did not have a long chain of questing to the extent Tyhm's Classic did. In UN's case obtaining all the hearts and equipment, while still a chore, could be done in a much less relative amount of time compared to Classic. Babylon is a bad example, for whatever reasons it may have been it had problems which caused it to fade out within this time period.

Delteria actually did have a handful of quests and you were kind of screwed if you didn't take the time to do them as the server heavily revolved around pk/spar, especially when you had three "powerhouse" guilds (TNR, Veracity, MHX) all fighting eachother. I concede that Babylon is indeed a bad example, now that I remember it more clearly it was an early server that adopted events as a mainstream type of thing and might have had event coins.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Not necessarily a strong presence, by referring to quest development as a lost art I was emphasising the higher frequency that occurred back then when compared to the very low frequency of it that occurs now.

Oh ok, fair enough. Back then it was pretty much a requirement though because real content on servers was rare. We didn't have things like hats, item trading, npc serv, etc on all servers until full p2p. To pass PWA inspection your content had to be "ok", aka: you had to have decent levels, NPC weapons, and a handful of quests. That was about it really.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

To have a set direction and objective pointed out to a first time player is more likely -in general- to keep them online and interested for longer, compared to leaving them to wander around aimlessly with no given direction or objective. At the same time however, once the sword is obtained at the very start players are not prevented from wandering around aimlessly according to their free will. So even if you refuse to believe it can have a positive effect on long term playercount, it's only to a very small extent it could possibly have a negative effect.

Only if there was a server filled to the brim with playable content almost everywhere that can be explored might it then be sufficient to leave the game entirely down to exploration, Graal just doesn't have servers which come close to offering this. If most of the levels are waste levels which offer no incentive, exploring them is less likely to be interesting. With what we have on Classic though, there's a stable foundation of linear questing that can branch out and gradually become more flexible.

The thing is, despite the vibe I seem to be giving off, I do respect the fact that you're going for early-game content with substance, but I feel like the average newbie will find it to be too drawn out. Storyline and lore on any game is always an awesome thing to have, but it's very difficult to find it appealing past the very short-term on a multiplayer game when the quest itself is not that fun or if the storyline isn't really intriguing.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

I'm not sure what time era you're referring to here, post NPC-Server Classic began as a complete wipe around January 2005. There were no quests other than a simplistic maze and a pushblock hell hole until the Castle quest around a third of the way through 2006. By the time the next quests were released playercount had already dropped much lower, a lot of the pre NPC-Server players had left, and v5 had been implemented.

I'm not sure either because other than exploring it in 2000 I didn't actively play Classic until 2006. I was always under the impression that the NPC-Serv was implemented around 2003/2004 because the playercount was relatively low then.

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Crono

I think there's a misunderstanding here, we've both acknowledged that a forced storyline + quest narrows down the server's appeal. How is narrowing down your server's appeal a positive point? It's such a stupid thing (the actual point we're arguing over) to revolve this entire thing around but that's all it really is.

I didn't take what you said out of context, it was completely within context.

Yes, I've acknowledged that having a quest storyline (and it's not a forced one by the way) narrows the appeal, as this isn't of direct importance to most casual style players (there are exceptions, some do try the quests and end up liking them). This is not to say that it's a negative point of the server, especially as it is not impacting the ability to participate within competitive content, and to suggest that it is would be ignorant of the fact a lot of players have been connected to the community via questing.

Originally Posted by Crono

Delteria actually did have a handful of quests and you were kind of screwed if you didn't take the time to do them as the server heavily revolved around pk/spar, especially when you had three "powerhouse" guilds (TNR, Veracity, MHX) all fighting eachother.

A handful of quests is little in comparison to the number that existed on Classic at the time, even if you knew what you were doing Classic's quests took several days to get through, in my case I remember it taking weeks, which was just not practical to get far with on a trial account.
So while it would be fair to say Delteria was affected, it wouldn't have been vulnerable to the same extent.

Originally Posted by Crono

Oh ok, fair enough. Back then it was pretty much a requirement though because real content on servers was rare. We didn't have things like hats, item trading, npc serv, etc on all servers until full p2p. To pass PWA inspection your content had to be "ok", aka: you had to have decent levels, NPC weapons, and a handful of quests. That was about it really.

Yeah it does make sense. Development is naturally focussed more towards the short term, especially given that newer players now have to pay a much higher price for the permit to develop, that GS2 can't be practised offline like GS1 could and that high end scripting ability takes longer to learn today. I wouldn't say Tyhm's Classic was perfect either, far from it, a large chunk of the quests were dated even by 2004's standards, even the newer ones were buggy. What we're trying to do is create the best of both worlds.

Originally Posted by Crono

The thing is, despite the vibe I seem to be giving off, I do respect the fact that you're going for early-game content with substance, but I feel like the average newbie will find it to be too drawn out. Storyline and lore on any game is always an awesome thing to have, but it's very difficult to find it appealing past the very short-term on a multiplayer game when the quest itself is not that fun or if the storyline isn't really intriguing.

I actually agree with this, and even admit Classic's storyline isn't greatly intriguing or elegant, I'm not a story writer and it's not really meant to be a legendary tale. It is very much a mix of old ideas put together coherently, to at the very least give the impression of it being an alive world, with a design that can be developed gradually (therefore realistically), the simple intention being to guide players.

Originally Posted by Crono

I'm not sure either because other than exploring it in 2000 I didn't actively play Classic until 2006. I was always under the impression that the NPC-Serv was implemented around 2003/2004 because the playercount was relatively low then.

2000 was a lot more random, with no main storyline or provided direction, though you could say there was the objective of finding the 4 Graal's to open the golden gate.
2001 - 2004 was a period of great transition, the overworld being moulded into a series of islands, a main storyline being introduced along with an intro and direction, but it also had separate quest chains branch off it, and retained much of the side quests.

A large problem with side quests in the past was that they were often not appropriate for your current amount of hearts or your sword level. You could be short of hearts and find a quest impossible to complete. Once you have a solid set of foundations in place, it's much easier to design side quests around that which are the appropriate difficulty, or where you'll have the weapons that are necessary.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Your compelling argument shall receive strong consideration.

I'm sure it's how you take most criticism into consideration.

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Hiro

I'm sure it's how you take most criticism into consideration.

When the criticism is nothing but "that's stupid", or "that's just plain ****ed up", without providing any reasoning or acknowledgement of provided details, then yes it is.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

When the criticism is nothing but "that's stupid", or "that's just plain ****ed up", without providing any reasoning or acknowledgement of provided details, then yes it is.

There isn't much to criticize, Crono seems to have taken up that argument already.

I just plain don't like the idea because it means having to basically do paperwork for global guilds to be created locally. Local guild can work, I just dislike them other than for throwaway tags and local staff. I think it's stupid to disallow global guilds simply because they're global.

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Hiro

There isn't much to criticize, Crono seems to have taken up that argument already.

The arguments made against global guilds so far do not weigh up when balanced against the advantages of a local guilds system that have been highlighted.

Originally Posted by Hiro

I think it's stupid to disallow global guilds simply because they're global.

So do I. We're not going to scrap global guilds just because they're global, that's actually the one factor (though not necessarily an advantage) which doesn't apply to local guilds.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Yes, I've acknowledged that having a quest storyline (and it's not a forced one by the way) narrows the appeal, as this isn't of direct importance to most casual style players (there are exceptions, some do try the quests and end up liking them). This is not to say that it's a negative point of the server, especially as it is not impacting the ability to participate within competitive content, and to suggest that it is would be ignorant of the fact a lot of players have been connected to the community via questing.

The majority of your casual players (that will constitute the majority of the playerbase in general) are not going to be competitive players. We've both already acknowledged that the quest-story structure (which yeah, it is kind of forced) narrows down its appeal against the casual players.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

A handful of quests is little in comparison to the number that existed on Classic at the time, even if you knew what you were doing Classic's quests took several days to get through, in my case I remember it taking weeks, which was just not practical to get far with on a trial account.
So while it would be fair to say Delteria was affected, it wouldn't have been vulnerable to the same extent.

Yeah but there was nothing stopping existing Classic players and players with Classic/Gold/VIP from continuing to play Classic/get through the questing phase. This didn't happen though. A large majority of Graal's playerbase, who were fully able to complete Classic's quests, opted for other servers (most which were still what we call "Classic" or rather "traditional" defaults). It's actually kind of funny we've brought this up because I remember some servers would get in trouble with the PWA by adding NPCs that would secretly save trial stats/progress. Oh the good times.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

2000 was a lot more random, with no main storyline or provided direction, though you could say there was the objective of finding the 4 Graal's to open the golden gate.

You know, I could have sworn I made it into the golden realm without completing all the quests. Perhaps the golden realm I'm referring to and the golden gate are two different things.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

The arguments made against global guilds so far do not weigh up when balanced against the advantages of a local guilds system that have been highlighted.

In your opinion maybe. To players it will mean having to organize another member list for their global guild which is annoying and seemingly pointless. The only real advantages local guilds give are the ability to control them more, and not even that much more.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

So do I. We're not going to scrap global guilds just because they're global, that's actually the one factor (though not necessarily an advantage) which doesn't apply to local guilds.

Except that is an advantage.

But whatever. This isn't the first time you've senselessly argued against something people had issues with.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by Hiro

In your opinion maybe. To players it will mean having to organize another member list for their global guild which is annoying and seemingly pointless. The only real advantages local guilds give are the ability to control them more, and not even that much more.

LOL, You're joking right? Think of what you can expand to local guilds as functionality. Just think on that and you'll see why you're wrong.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

LOL, You're joking right? Think of what you can expand to local guilds as functionality. Just think on that and you'll see why you're wrong.

You can "expand" the same **** to global guilds.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by Hiro

You can "expand" the same **** to global guilds.

Cute keywording, what I'm referring to is the fact that local guilds can be manipulated towards actually beneficial uses and constructs that work towards the server itself. I'm not talking merely making it so members can be added.

On a development perspective, Local, Scripted guilds beat the hell out of Global guilds by the fact that they can be established to a point where they actually hold functionality other then just being name-tags.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

Cute keywording, what I'm referring to is the fact that local guilds can be manipulated towards actually beneficial uses and constructs that work towards the server itself. I'm not talking merely making it so members can be added.

On a development perspective, Local, Scripted guilds beat the hell out of Global guilds by the fact that they can be established to a point where they actually hold functionality other then just being name-tags.

In the end it's just tag manipulation which can be done with global guilds as well.

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Hiro

To players it will mean having to organize another member list for their global guild which is annoying and seemingly pointless.

If it means having a much better system, then surely it's worth it?
You're also forgetting that it will save the effort of members having to open their web browser, log in to Graal Online and browse through the control panel there, as opposed to opening a window within the game.

Originally Posted by Hiro

The only real advantages local guilds give are the ability to control them more, and not even that much more.

Control them more?
They'd give us 100% freedom and control.

Originally Posted by Hiro

Except that is an advantage.

Not when you have thousands of mostly useless guilds, some intended for other specific servers.

Originally Posted by Hiro

You can "expand" the same **** to global guilds.

Except we can't, global guilds have very few ways in which they can be accessed by script.

Originally Posted by Hiro

This isn't the first time you've senselessly argued against something

Ironic >

Originally Posted by Hiro

Local guilds only is stupid and you should feel bad for thinking it's a good idea.

Originally Posted by Hiro

If so, then that is just plain ****ed up, as are local guilds in general.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by Hiro

In the end it's just tag manipulation which can be done with global guilds as well.

This is a perfect example of being closed minded, I refer to you this as to my example of why Global Guilds can't beat Local Guilds in functionality, as well as just plain being more then capable of replacing the obsolete system:

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

Example: Billy Bob "Cotton Eye" Joe Harris decides he wants to have "The Farmer's Guild". He pays or does whatever is necessary for that guild to be created, an excessively creative server could have it where that you go to the "Guild's Headquarters" and fill out some "paper forms" in a clever GUI appearance, once that is done, a guild administrator could literally read and review said application right in front of you, interview you based on the answers of your questions given from the application, Once everything is fixed, finished and ready to go, you get your "Guild Certificate" and then you could be asked if you wish to also buy a Guildhouse for your brand spankin' new guild.

The idea of guilds is an extremely flexible and also enjoyable aspect, Global Guilds are just nametags, Local Guilds could literally become what a server IS, If you know how to create content friendly to the feature itself.

I would also like to simply add to the fact that if we've seen from what the Scripted RC has shown to everybody else, that also means that having Local Guilds as a barebone script on its own is also a viable way to eliminate the need for Global Guilds at all, considering that it could even become the new Global Guild System itself.

This is a hypothetical, but it's not improbable.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

text

You'd gain the ability to delete/create guilds?

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

This is a perfect example of being closed minded, I refer to you this as to my example of why Global Guilds can't beat Local Guilds in functionality, as well as just plain being more then capable of replacing the obsolete system:



This is a hypothetical, but it's not improbable.

If that's what you want why not offer it to both types of guilds?

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by Hiro

If that's what you want why not offer it to both types of guilds?

Allow me to answer your question with one of my own.

Why have the need for two when one can do the other one's job better and more efficiently?
My stance on the matter is that Global guilds are worthless when if the effort was put into it properly, could become a primary system inside of Graal itself, then it can/could give players the ability to use these guilds added to the system on any server they like, Servers then could make it where for a guild to be made or a member to be approved/evaluated to a guild, then they would just have to do a simple application, in game, just like we do now, afterwards, there could be some form of "Global Guild" approval system at login (in client) for either some kind of global staff or even the guild leaders/recruiters themselves (Doesn't matter to me, but I'd prefer a global personnel in charge of that, while the guild leaders/recruiters would be in charge of removal of their staff), perhaps place on the bar, where you go to install developer tools/buy gralat, which is also just so empty at the moment. Finally, just like the Scripted RC, there could be requested privileges that a server could ask for specifically their guild systems, so that they could even diversify the guild system the way they want to, as well as keep the system itself secure.

I do not fully understand how everything works with scripting/how the scripted RC itself works, this is all just an idea, If it could work, that would be fantastic.