What classic's all about.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by TheGodAngelo

You forget that more people enjoy quests

I disagree, most people that run through quests don't usually "enjoy" them as much as you'd believe. A lot of players, Unless you're a memorable drive, will usually find quests in Classic to be more seen as "That quest I do for my X-Item here.".

Originally Posted by TheGodAngelo

You're certainly given the option of playing servers without them.

Well I'm glad to read that.

Originally Posted by TheGodAngelo

Classic has quests, many people enjoy them, you don't. go somewhere else then?

This seems rather negative, Also I don't believe he was entirely against quests in the first place, If I read everything right.

Originally Posted by TheGodAngelo

Classic will have local guilds, you don't like that. cool, not for everybody, there's quite a few other servers out there. have fun

More negative antagonism, extremely bad PR right here.
Also just bad for the community to see this. If we're segregating like this with attitudes, we end up diluting the overall enjoyment of what Graal is. Which is what I truly believe killed Graal in the first place.

Originally Posted by TheGodAngelo

But to bag on something simply because it's not your taste, It's like bagging on Valikorlia for not having guns if you're an Era fan.

I also find this rather unusual as a comparison, validity as Crono placed it is questionable, but not improbable.

That's all I have to say on this particular argument.

As for the actual Global vs Local Guilds matter.

Local Guilds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Global Guilds 150%

1. Local Guilds can be handled JUST as easily as global guilds, especially if scripted properly for accessibility.
2. In theory, with proper handling, Local Guilds are also more viable as a choice then Global just due to the fact that the servers that operate Local guilds would also have more control as to what a guild in general even MEANS.

Hypothetical Example #1 (One and only): 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.

Thank you for burning your retinas on reading my paragraph.

[TheGodAngelo]

Originally Posted by Crono

stuff

You obviously don't understand so i'm not going to bother refuting you, i might consider it if you could go a minute without resorting to insults for a lack of a proper argument.

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

I disagree.

Remember to remain objective, Npulse is a good example, it didn't offer anything new (among other things) and it subsequently died.

Classic is and always has been a questing server, that's one of it's major points of interest. you wouldn't remove guns from era.

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Hiro

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

Thank you for this useful and informative post.

Originally Posted by Crono

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.

Oh ok I guess all of those old players who thought Tyhm's Classic was a relic and the greatest designed server Graal has ever seen are null and void. I guess the 150 players who have completed the castle quest, the 300 who have done the tomb quest and the 560 who have done Zol's toilet (not bad for a UC server) are null and void.
Now I think about it casual players are null and void on iPhone considering most players are idling in Graal City asking for a girlfriend or for someone to adopt them. Guild forts and spar arenas aren't catering to their desires right?
That's how logical arguments work my friend.

Is it really that difficult to conceive the idea there can be a strategy for bringing players to the game (by actually presenting it as a game with a purpose, and providing direction), as well as a strategy for keeping players on the game (by having competitions and activites on a level playing field), working in tandem with eachother?

Spar/PK/Event type content is much easier to develop, hence why it is in relative abundance, and already quite strongly positioned on Graal.
Solid permanent content such as Quests are much harder to develop, hence why it is something of a lost art on Graal, and so a large un-tapped reserve.

Once again, the storyline is only prohibiting competitive content to an incredibly small extent. Unless you think legitimately new players will log on for the first time, head straight to the spar arena and enjoy getting slaughtered it is not causing any harm. The idea that "no one cares about quests" is utterly ridiculous, it would be like me saying "no one cares about buying hats", which is something I find quite funny, yet clearly it is something some players care about on other servers.

Originally Posted by Crono

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.

Keeping global guilds enabled would render some of the advantages of local guilds redundant, and this would also require a greater amount of work. Using one system allows us to keep all guilds relevant to the server, ensure all guilds are created to the same requirements, provide the opportunity to obtain perks to all guilds, and provide all guilds with the same tools and capabilities.

Originally Posted by Crono

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.

Preventing multi-guilding can just as easily mean limiting players to 3 guilds as opposed to 1. That was just your assumption.

Originally Posted by Crono

You can't enforce loyalty. It's something players decide for themselves.

This is a romantic idea in theory, but in practise has been complained about for a decade. Having a system which enforces it will mean guilds have to put in effort to recruit indecisive players over other guilds, which is more conducive to a competitive environment.

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

I disagree, most people that run through quests don't usually "enjoy" them as much as you'd believe. A lot of players, Unless you're a memorable drive, will usually find quests in Classic to be more seen as "That quest I do for my X-Item here.".

This is fairly common in online gaming as well as other Graal servers throughout history, but if you've played through Tyhm's or the current Classic quests this is far from the case, there's a lot more design towards them than simply being generic chore like errands as an excuse to give an award.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

This is fairly common in online gaming as well as other Graal servers throughout history, but if you've played through Tyhm's or the current Classic quests this is far from the case, there's a lot more design towards them than simply being generic chore like errands as an excuse to give an award.

The design is fine, I've played some of the current quests, not a lot of them though, but from what I feel, they aren't that much to me. That's my full and honest opinion on them. If you want me to elaborate, I can't, sorry.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by TheGodAngelo

You obviously don't understand so i'm not going to bother refuting you, i might consider it if you could go a minute without resorting to insults for a lack of a proper argument.

I don't understand? lol, ok man.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Oh ok I guess all of those old players who thought Tyhm's Classic was a relic and the greatest designed server Graal has ever seen are null and void. I guess the 150 players who have completed the castle quest, the 300 who have done the tomb quest and the 560 who have done Zol's toilet (not bad for a UC server) are null and void.
Now I think about it casual players are null and void on iPhone considering most players are idling in Graal City asking for a girlfriend or for someone to adopt them. Guild forts and spar arenas aren't catering to their desires right?
That's how logical arguments work my friend.

I see no logical argument in what you posted. My very first post was poking fun at the fact that you consider a forced storyline + questing structure as a positive point, while even you responded that casual players (that constitute the majority of any given playerbase) and older players ("such as myself") might not find it appealing.

If you want to talk numbers, Classic was the de-facto server and held onto a large proportion of the playercount prior to full-p2p back in 2002. When full p2p was finally unleashed, its playercount inevitably dwindled. As early as 2003 servers like Era (which had no quests), UN (really horrible quests), and Valikorlia (no quests) dominated the top 3 server spots. I don't know if you're aware of this or not but there was never a golden age of questing outside of Classic on any servers.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Is it really that difficult to conceive the idea there can be a strategy for bringing players to the game (by actually presenting it as a game with a purpose, and providing direction), as well as a strategy for keeping players on the game (by having competitions and activites on a level playing field), working in tandem with eachother?

Spar/PK/Event type content is much easier to develop, hence why it is in relative abundance, and already quite strongly positioned on Graal.
Solid permanent content such as Quests are much harder to develop, hence why it is something of a lost art on Graal, and so a large un-tapped reserve.

Once again, the storyline is only prohibiting competitive content to an incredibly small extent. Unless you think legitimately new players will log on for the first time, head straight to the spar arena and enjoy getting slaughtered it is not causing any harm. The idea that "no one cares about quests" is utterly ridiculous, it would be like me saying "no one cares about buying hats", which is something I find quite funny, yet clearly it is something some players care about on other servers.

I'm not against having a storyline, structured method of introducing new players to servers, quests, or any of that. Forced quests themselves aren't even that bad. Forcing a storyline + questing onto players on a multiplayer game, however, isn't ideal. To describe why I'd have to get into the whole characters-being-forms-of-self-expression and how a forced generally linear storyline alienates their avatars. It's why you never have forced storyline on other multiplayer games unless they compliment the normal gameplay. You claim quests are permanent content, but they're only done once and never touched again by a player. I also never claimed that no one cares about quests, I claimed that over a decade of interaction with players from dozens of servers indicates that quests are not important. Logically they are simply obstacles to the "end game".

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Keeping global guilds enabled would render some of the advantages of local guilds redundant, and this would also require a greater amount of work. Using one system allows us to keep all guilds relevant to the server, ensure all guilds are created to the same requirements, provide the opportunity to obtain perks to all guilds, and provide all guilds with the same tools and capabilities.

Preventing multi-guilding can just as easily mean limiting players to 3 guilds as opposed to 1. That was just your assumption.

This is a romantic idea in theory, but in practise has been complained about for a decade. Having a system which enforces it will mean guilds have to put in effort to recruit indecisive players over other guilds, which is more conducive to a competitive environment.

Bro, if you have an awesome local guild system planned out there's nothing wrong with that. The problem I had was the multi-guilding prevention coupled with local guilds. Your posts only stated that multi-guilding would be prevented. Being in more than one guild is multi-guilding. My assumption was based on the information you gave me.

People will multi-guild if the guilds in question are weak, that's just how it works. There are some guilds that never had or still don't have issues with multi-guilding (Veracity, MHX, TNR, BTK, SNC, US, and so many more) and some guilds that were only built as either alliances or "jokes". If someone is legit multi-guilding in your guild, it's a sign of disloyalty and you simply kick them out if you have a problem with it. That's how it's been for so long.

I think the biggest issue with local-only guilds is if they are defying the "real" global guild's members & hierarchy.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by Crono

People will multi-guild if the guilds in question are weak, that's just how it works. There are some guilds that never had or still don't have issues with multi-guilding (Veracity, MHX, TNR, BTK, SNC, US, and so many more) and some guilds that were only built as either alliances or "jokes". If someone is legit multi-guilding in your guild, it's a sign of disloyalty and you simply kick them out if you have a problem with it. That's how it's been for so long.

I think the biggest issue with local-only guilds is if they are defying the "real" global guild's members & hierarchy.

Just to add to that (since my first post was so informative and useful) what about family guilds? I know most people don't seem to take them seriously anymore, but if I have to create the local guild for Bloodvayne and then still want to be in SNC and such, would I be prevented from doing so?

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

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Hiro

Just to add to that (since my first post was so informative and useful) what about family guilds? I know most people don't seem to take them seriously anymore, but if I have to create the local guild for Bloodvayne and then still want to be in SNC and such, would I be prevented from doing so?

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

I addressed family guilds somewhere in one of those posts but yeah, that's one of the reasons why I was questioning it. Family guilds aren't as common as they used to be though, I can only think of Bv and Heartless that are still active. I would mention Dionne but let's face it, the real Dionne is dead. ;p

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Crono

I see no logical argument in what you posted. My very first post was poking fun at the fact that you consider a forced storyline + questing structure as a positive point, while even you responded that casual players (that constitute the majority of any given playerbase) and older players ("such as myself") might not find it appealing.

Saying questing may not appeal to casual type players is not contrary to listing questing as a positive point. The original post was highlighting the aspects of the server, inwhich casual players are not the only target audience in the way that your post suggested. You seem to like using the word logic an awful lot yet many of your statements are illogical, or only looking at it from one perspective.

Originally Posted by Crono

If you want to talk numbers, Classic was the de-facto server and held onto a large proportion of the playercount prior to full-p2p back in 2002. When full p2p was finally unleashed, its playercount inevitably dwindled. As early as 2003 servers like Era (which had no quests), UN (really horrible quests), and Valikorlia (no quests) dominated the top 3 server spots.

It's not surprising, when you consider there was this trial restriction of not being able to save, it was impossible to progress far on Classic when every login you were completely reset, that was a terrible model for a questing game. Not only that but there were so many quests that it actually took a long time to obtain all of the hearts and equipment, so trials were not on a level playing field competitively, and it wasn't viable for them to re-obtain their stats each time they logged on.

Originally Posted by Crono

I don't know if you're aware of this or not but there was never a golden age of questing outside of Classic on any servers.

Completely irrelevant, I never said there was and yet it's still a statement some may disagree with.

Originally Posted by Crono

You claim quests are permanent content, but they're only done once and never touched again by a player.

They are permanent in the form of being available and welcoming to every player who ever logs onto the server in future, which is the whole point. The idea that quests are pointless because they take so long to make, you play them once in a short space of time, and then you're finished with them is a massive misconception. Quests are not there to keep players occupied, they are there to hook the interest in the game to begin with.

Originally Posted by Crono

I also never claimed that no one cares about quests, I claimed that over a decade of interaction with players from dozens of servers indicates that quests are not important. Logically they are simply obstacles to the "end game".

Quests are not of direct importance to players who only play to participate within competitive content, something which has always been in relative abundance on Graal. Quests are not seen as important on other servers, but quests have rarely been developed to a decent quality and/or quantity on other servers. The server we're talking about here stands out as an exception, as such many of those who considered old Classic as their home server also consider quests to be important. Otherwise I wonder what all the fuss that occurred within the first years of post NPC-Server Classic was about.

Originally Posted by Crono

Bro, if you have an awesome local guild system planned out there's nothing wrong with that. The problem I had was the multi-guilding prevention coupled with local guilds. Your posts only stated that multi-guilding would be prevented. Being in more than one guild is multi-guilding. My assumption was based on the information you gave me.

By that definition, being in both a warring guild and a family is multi-guilding, when many including yourself if I understood correctly would not consider it to be. There is a goal to prevent multi-guilding generally speaking, there is however different ways to accomplish it.

Originally Posted by Crono

I think the biggest issue with local-only guilds is if they are defying the "real" global guild's members & hierarchy.

There's no reason we can't have global guild recreation require ownership of the guild, or some form of manual confirmation of leadership. Ranks + rights can also be created for local guilds.

Originally Posted by Hiro

Just to add to that (since my first post was so informative and useful) what about family guilds? I know most people don't seem to take them seriously anymore, but if I have to create the local guild for Bloodvayne and then still want to be in SNC and such, would I be prevented from doing so?

This has already been addressed. One of the advantages of having a local guild system is that it does allow for the separation of guilds according to type. So yes, you could be in both a competitive guild as well as a family.

Originally Posted by Hiro

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

Your compelling argument shall receive strong consideration.

[Crono]

You really should stop breaking down posts into a billion quotes, makes it really hard for people to follow and hard to respond to.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Saying questing may not appeal to casual type players is not contrary to listing questing as a positive point. The original post was highlighting the aspects of the server, inwhich casual players are not the only target audience in the way that your post suggested. You seem to like using the word logic an awful lot yet many of your statements are illogical, or only looking at it from one perspective.

No, many of my statements are flawless yet people still manage to think so otherwise. My very first response was poking fun at the fact that I don't consider forced storyline + questing as a positive point for Classic over Era. My arguement is that the server's appeal would be narrowed down (a view which even you acknowledged) with the presence of such a feature.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

It's not surprising, when you consider there was this trial restriction of not being able to save, it was impossible to progress far on Classic when every login you were completely reset, that was a terrible model for a questing game. Not only that but there were so many quests that it actually took a long time to obtain all of the hearts and equipment, so trials were not on a level playing field competitively, and it wasn't viable for them to re-obtain their stats each time they logged on.

Wasn't a problem for UN, Delteria, Babylon, etc that also had initial quests. In Classic's defense, it had a really awkward time when the NPC Serv was introduced.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Completely irrelevant, I never said there was and yet it's still a statement some may disagree with.

You referred to it as a lost art, as if there was a strong questing presence within the development community.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

They are permanent in the form of being available and welcoming to every player who ever logs onto the server in future, which is the whole point. The idea that quests are pointless because they take so long to make, you play them once in a short space of time, and then you're finished with them is a massive misconception. Quests are not there to keep players occupied, they are there to hook the interest in the game to begin with.

Quests are not of direct importance to players who only play to participate within competitive content, something which has always been in relative abundance on Graal. Quests are not seen as important on other servers, but quests have rarely been developed to a decent quality and/or quantity on other servers. The server we're talking about here stands out as an exception, as such many of those who considered old Classic as their home server also consider quests to be important. Otherwise I wonder what all the fuss that occurred within the first years of post NPC-Server Classic was about.

Yes, I obviously know the purpose of a quest but to have long drawn out quests and then claim it's there to initally hook players in is rather...strange. Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't have a storyline or that you shouldn't have quests, but I disagree with forcing both together. Post NPC-Server Classic (someone correct me if I'm wrong) broke a lot of the NPCs/systems so they had to be re-done from scratch. Classic had a large playercount of players who had already completed all the quests, so if a lot of the trials had left then the only people left didn't have any quests to re-complete, so there would be no fuss from them would there? Perhaps the server was reset and everything was still broken, who knows.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

By that definition, being in both a warring guild and a family is multi-guilding, when many including yourself if I understood correctly would not consider it to be. There is a goal to prevent multi-guilding generally speaking, there is however different ways to accomplish it.

I wouldn't say warring guild, I would just say a normal guild. Families like to have tags because it's a sign of legitimacy, otherwise they just add the family name after their own followed by whatever guild they're in.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

There's no reason we can't have global guild recreation require ownership of the guild, or some form of manual confirmation of leadership. Ranks + rights can also be created for local guilds.

Yep, sounds fine.

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Crono

No, many of my statements are flawless yet people still manage to think so
otherwise.

Arrogance is not a persuasive argument.

Originally Posted by Crono

My very first response was poking fun at the fact that I don't consider forced storyline + questing as a positive point for Classic over Era.

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.

Originally Posted by Crono

My arguement is that the server's appeal would be narrowed down (a view which even you acknowledged) with the presence of such a feature.

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.

Originally Posted by Crono

Wasn't a problem for UN, Delteria, Babylon, etc that also had initial quests. In Classic's defense, it had a really awkward time when the NPC Serv was introduced.

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.

Originally Posted by Crono

You referred to it as a lost art, as if there was a strong questing presence within the development community.

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.

Originally Posted by Crono

Yes, I obviously know the purpose of a quest but to have long drawn out quests and then claim it's there to initally hook players in is rather...strange.

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.

Originally Posted by Crono

Again, I'm not saying you shouldn't have a storyline or that you shouldn't have quests, but I disagree with forcing both together. Post NPC-Server Classic (someone correct me if I'm wrong) broke a lot of the NPCs/systems so they had to be re-done from scratch. Classic had a large playercount of players who had already completed all the quests, so if a lot of the trials had left then the only people left didn't have any quests to re-complete, so there would be no fuss from them would there? Perhaps the server was reset and everything was still broken, who knows.

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.

[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.