The Classic Lottery - Page 4

BlackSolider · #1 05-02-2009, 08:06 PM

Apparently I'm a bad GC because I don't exactly follow your standards of hosting.

But try and look at it from a different perspective for once. Competitiveness brings out the best in people, no? In a truly competitive situation, everyone involved is trying their best to do whatever it takes to win. I for one believe that competition is best brought out in large numbers, and/or in a tournament structure. Three people isn't my idea of a competition, as I've said before.

From the perspective of good competition, I'm not doing anything wrong. If you look at it from other perspectives, I'm sure you can find fault with my methods. But I do what I do for good competition, which is what I believe in.

MysticX2X · #2 05-02-2009, 08:17 PM

Large numbers brings guild alliances, no? That's not competition at all.

But that isn't the point.

It's the point that Classic is in a ****hole right now, so you have to lower your expectations to adjust to the status quo. You can't just keep your expectations the same always. You might as well quit then because Classic isn't going to elevate if the motivation of the staff members is like this.

BlackSolider · #3 05-02-2009, 08:45 PM

Competition doesn't lower its expectations. It wants everything you got to try and win. When you start an event with only 1 opponent (as opposed to getting to a 1v1 situation at the end of a 8 person lms,) there's no chance to build up a competitive spirit. There's no chance to prove yourself by cutting down a horde of enemies. Anyone can get lucky in a 1v1 or 1v1v1 situation; it takes true skill to win a competitive 8 person free for all. That's what I'm trying to achieve when I host.

MysticX2X · #4 05-03-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSolider

Competition doesn't lower its expectations. It wants everything you got to try and win. When you start an event with only 1 opponent (as opposed to getting to a 1v1 situation at the end of a 8 person lms,) there's no chance to build up a competitive spirit. There's no chance to prove yourself by cutting down a horde of enemies. Anyone can get lucky in a 1v1 or 1v1v1 situation; it takes true skill to win a competitive 8 person free for all. That's what I'm trying to achieve when I host.

Oh yeah true skill with 2 guild alliances already made? Oh u so clever gladius.

Large events are better, yes. But Current Classic now simply won't comfort that satisfaction. Maybe you should adjust? If you don't want to host for 3 people while on tag, then that's just being selfish.

jacob_bald6225 · #5 05-03-2009, 06:07 AM

Would it have hurt to preview the prize through some screenshots before the drawing?

BlackSolider · #6 05-03-2009, 04:12 PM

I adjust to acceptable levels. If there's 40 people on, however unlikely, I'm not going to host something that only 8 or 10 people can play; I'm going to host something with an unlimited amount so I can get as many as possible. Same thing with lower counts, like in the teens. I'm not going to try and host an event that needs exactly 8 people if I'm not convinced I'll get eight.

Yes, you need to adjust to your playercount, but do realize that there are limits. You can't have 30 people in one room for an LMS event; it'd be too crowded. Same thing our current playercount. Yesterday you hosted both a pit LMS and thin ice sumo for 2 or 3 people. Wtf. That's not an event. I don't care how bad our playercount is right now, I'm not going to "bastardize" (night's word) my events because I have standards. Are they too high? Well, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. So host your 3 person "events" and I'll host my quality events when the opportunity presents itself (like last night.)

BlackSolider · #7 05-03-2009, 07:52 PM

Last time I checked, FAQ can sit on tag. GC's can't.

xnervNATx · #8 05-03-2009, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSolider

Last time I checked, FAQ can sit on tag. GC's can't.

last time i checked no events were hosted in a week

BlackSolider · #9 05-03-2009, 11:54 PM

Last time I checked thats vastly exaggerated.

jacob_bald6225 · #10 05-04-2009, 12:05 AM

So no lottery winner announcement?

MysticX2X · #11 05-04-2009, 12:16 AM

Darkcloud won the lottery. He's a staff member who probably has the superbomb in his inventory.

Whoop dee do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSolider

I adjust to acceptable levels. If there's 40 people on, however unlikely, I'm not going to host something that only 8 or 10 people can play; I'm going to host something with an unlimited amount so I can get as many as possible. Same thing with lower counts, like in the teens. I'm not going to try and host an event that needs exactly 8 people if I'm not convinced I'll get eight.

Yes, you need to adjust to your playercount, but do realize that there are limits. You can't have 30 people in one room for an LMS event; it'd be too crowded. Same thing our current playercount. Yesterday you hosted both a pit LMS and thin ice sumo for 2 or 3 people. Wtf. That's not an event. I don't care how bad our playercount is right now, I'm not going to "bastardize" (night's word) my events because I have standards. Are they too high? Well, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. So host your 3 person "events" and I'll host my quality events when the opportunity presents itself (like last night.)

Okay, for one - you just said you were asking how many people would play an event and in return got 3 pms. So that means you would never host an event for 3 people even though those can remain competitively fun.

Also, if there were a lot of people who joined an LMS event, I'd call that fun too. More people = More frantic and fun.

I hosted small events because those people actually enjoyed them. It seems that you only host to satisfy yourself and not the enjoyment of others, even if in the smallest quantity.

BlackSolider · #12 05-04-2009, 01:06 AM

If I don't find a particular event to be fun, I don't usually host it. It doesn't matter if it's pictionary or a 3 person lms. If its not fun to watch, I don't want to host it. When I host, I want to watch a competitive match going on. If an event isn't going to be competitive (by my previous definition,) I won't want to watch it and thus I won't want to host it. End of story.

God forbid a person wanting to play in or watch a competitive event.

MysticX2X · #13 05-04-2009, 03:14 AM

That sounds selfish again. Hosting is generally not always a fun thing. You signed up for the job and accepted the difficulties you face including not having fun watching some while others may. You host for others fun, not your own though that is a plus.

Again you avoid the fact of a 3 man still being competitive, although it's fast.

BlackSolider · #14 05-04-2009, 03:17 AM

What's more competitive: A pickup basketball game with 3 people or 8 people? With a 3 person LMS, you only have to watch two people. With an 8 person LMS, you have to watch 7 different people at all times, dodging more than twice as many attacks.

As far as I'm concerned, 3-4 person events aren't competitive enough to warrant an event. If you think otherwise, then host them. I won't, for reasons already stated, whether you agree with them or not.

BlackSolider · #15 05-05-2009, 02:34 PM

@ mystic.

IMO the overworld is fine, it's just empty. We need to fill it with stuff people can use repeatedly.

xnervNATx · #16 05-05-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSolider

@ mystic.

IMO the overworld is fine, it's just empty. We need to fill it with stuff people can use repeatedly.

gr8 more requests , but no one to make them

BlackSolider · #17 05-05-2009, 06:29 PM

*sigh*

Clel I'm not talking about speed, quality, quantity, or any of that.

I'm simply saying I doubt can classic afford to wait more than a few months for new content. Eventually people are either going to give up hope completely or move to other servers (such as Delt.)

Cetellic · #18 05-06-2009, 03:10 AM

Hmm, well what happened with that is you brought up length of time, "how long can we afford to wait for super awesome stuff to be released", it won't be released at "light speed", in order to be super awesome it must "take awhile". All I said was the fact that super awesome stuff would take awhile to release makes no difference, since I've already countered the "people leaving because of no new content" issue... well atleast in this scenario thingy =(

Rufus · #19 05-06-2009, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cetellic

[..]if I was in control of dev speed wouldn't be a problem[..]

How?

Cetellic · #20 05-06-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rufus

How?

Because when stuff would be made we wouldnt wait around for it to fissile out, we'd keep things moving, all in the while having something big being worked on in the background. Laying foundations down is important business.

Rufus · #21 05-06-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cetellic

Because when stuff would be made we wouldnt wait around for it to fissile out, we'd keep things moving, all in the while having something big being worked on in the background. Laying foundations down is important business.

So why is the Game Coordinator team in the state that is in while you're the assistant administrator?

BlackSolider · #22 05-06-2009, 03:23 AM

We've seen how well fast releases work out. They don't. Releasing a bunch of **** quickly will fail if theres no long term planning behind them.

Pelikano · #23 05-06-2009, 11:24 AM

So the Card Game (****ing 154854 years) worked well? lol

xnervNATx · #24 05-06-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pelikano

So the Card Game (****ing 154854 years) worked well? lol

for 4-5 days yea

BlackSolider · #25 05-06-2009, 02:49 PM

The card game itself (design, scripting, images, testing, etc.) all took a few years due to several problems (the scripter left for a long time,) but I believe the actual public release was made too quickly and without enough thought about how things would turn out over two weeks. Though I doubt anyone could have predicted the outcome it had (card disparity, not the fact that it died.)

Mark Sir Link · #26 05-06-2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSolider

The card game itself (design, scripting, images, testing, etc.) all took a few years due to several problems (the scripter left for a long time,) but I believe the actual public release was made too quickly and without enough thought about how things would turn out over two weeks. Though I doubt anyone could have predicted the outcome it had (card disparity, not the fact that it died.)

anyone with 1/16th of a brain could have easily predicted it

Cetellic · #27 05-06-2009, 08:01 PM

because it's just assistant admin, there's no control with it really. If I was admin it'd be a different story, cause I'd have direct control over my team and could make the drastic changes needed.

MysticX2X · #28 05-06-2009, 11:34 PM

lol you have no restrictions on gc dev and you can simply tell night your ideas. Youre just finding excuses not to do your job.

Cetellic · #29 05-08-2009, 03:30 AM

Mystic wth man, you always fail everytime you speak on something...

GC Dev and GC are two different areas. With GC Dev things are fine until I run into limitations put there by the dev department.

There's no way Night will give into the ideas I have in mind.

BlackSolider · #30 05-08-2009, 03:34 AM

Are your ideas just wayyyyy out there, or do they break the current limitations in place?

(PS: this is a question, not an insult of any type.)

Cetellic · #31 05-08-2009, 03:51 AM

They'd be pretty easy to implement, guess they may break certain limitations

MysticX2X · #32 05-08-2009, 03:53 AM

LOL, I fail?

You fail when you can't even take asst admin to your advantage.

And if you think Night, a person who can be very rational, would not listen to your ideas, I bet it was probably stupid and outrageous along the lines of "FIRE ALL GC'S AND DO A MASS RE-HIRE".

Im not sure how Dev is restricting GC dev, but do explain.

Cetellic · #33 05-08-2009, 04:21 AM

Things get pretty deep and I dont feel like explaining something pointless.

MysticX2X · #34 05-09-2009, 01:47 AM

Then stop acting like you walk on water.

Cetellic · #35 05-09-2009, 10:51 AM

I answered a question, then you come in with FAIL and suddenly assume I think I'm God.... What are you trying to prove here?

xnervNATx · #36 05-09-2009, 02:42 PM

Shadow87 · #37 05-09-2009, 07:12 PM

Shut up already ****.

Sting didn't do **** as asst admin either, he made a lot of events, but Night always kept the team together. And anyone could have done what sting did, he was obsessed with WWF, so he recreated events of WWF to fit graal.

Clel is doing what every Asst admin has always done, basically nothing. Clel creates things, he does his part.

Night should be active and around to force you slackers to host, its everyones fault that GC is a pathetic pile of trash now. Clel you can actually tell them to host since night isn't around. And if they don't listen to you, then take it to night and tell him its about time he started dealing with this ****.

Oh and I have not read any of this stuff really, But the card game still remains garbage, why is that?

Where is its creators? Where are those changes promised?

BlackSolider · #38 05-09-2009, 07:13 PM

*shrug*

Shadow87 · #39 05-09-2009, 07:15 PM

That was also meant for the card game thread har.

But lottery probably isn't doing any good either like I said. Someone care to correct?

Gladius do you shrug because i am right about GC?

You are hired as GC to be the events coordinator for the server, i see no such thing happen on classic. So obviously you all suck very much at doing your job, and since you are not going to argue that I guess i am right.

MysticX2X · #40 05-09-2009, 07:23 PM

The GC team is in a pathetic condition right now, there is no doubt about it. But it's all in part with ensuring each GC does their part in hosting, which half only do.