Updates?

[Emily_Cruddas]

Not sure i understand very well, lance has a few new ideas for 2001 but it pretty much has the same feel to it, while koni has all new tilesets and is making 2001 like it used to be?


(edit) It's just a dang shame folks don't work together for one reason or another, talents that could be used together to make a truly amazing server that WILL attract new and old players alike is wasted because you say "Oh i just can't work with him because my ego doesn't allow it." just a dang shame....

[Zurkiba]

Originally Posted by Emily_Cruddas

Not sure i understand very well, lance has a few new ideas for 2001 but it pretty much has the same feel to it, while koni has all new tilesets and is making 2001 like it used to be?


(edit) It's just a dang shame folks don't work together for one reason or another, talents that could be used together to make a truly amazing server that WILL attract new and old players alike is wasted because you say "Oh i just can't work with him because my ego doesn't allow it." just a dang shame....

Lance is making the traditional 2k1, only with additions to things such as kingdoms and the economy, these are minor additions such as Tomato farming.

Koni is redoing the server, including the way bomies function and whatnot. Kingdoms aren't going to be the good looking kingdoms (probably just the same kingdoms) that are led by an NPC. The rest of the server is a mystery as Koni aint sharing it supposively

However, take my word for it. Competition between Konidas and Lance is probably the best thing to ever happen. I actually see people working on Graal2001 Dev and the reports are good of progression. This was non-existant a week before Konidas stated he was going to redo his server.

[Scott]

I'm torn between helping Koni or Lance and Jordan. ;\

[draygin]

Man you need to clean out your mail box Scott that or get on Aim more. :P

At any rate I'm helping Lance although we've really butted heads in the past the only thing in Graal that really interests me is RPing and NPC leaders just really isn't my bran.

It's nice to see you know us so well you can instantly tell what we have experienced and our reasons for not liking npc kings.
While I have not RP'd on Graal with NPC Kings I have in many other games such as Neverwinter Nights. By far and large the better experiences where always on those servers that had player controlled Kingdoms.
Now while I don't like the idea of having preset Kingdoms and then recruiting leaders. I much prefer people comming up with kingdoms RPing as small groups and building support and by then building up into a Kingdom. I still absolutely hate the idea of NPC lead Kingdoms. I could go on listing examples and reasons for why but it's clear you know more about my experiences and how things work not to mention what I actually enjoy even more than I do so I really don't see the need.

[konidias]

It's really a shame that so many people see things in black or white. How many servers have you played online that had an npc character as a king? My guess is ZERO. Then why are you so confident when you say that my idea won't work? Is it because you're afraid of the unknown?

In my opinion there are some people that don't like my npc king idea simply because they want themselves or their friends to be in power. My idea is going to put several people out of power. Which I guess is a turn off to those several people.

When I started my revision I thought about kingdoms and at first I didn't even want them at all. Because they are such a large project and they aren't NEEDED for roleplaying. But then I figured it would be better to have them anyway... But then I began to think about the problems that would arise from this:

1. Who leads each kingdom? Do you just draw names out of hat? Do they get voted in through a popularity contest? Do they get the position because they are friends with staff?

2. Will this person do a good job? Will they be active? What happens if they are inactive? What happens if they are corrupt?

3. How can any RP events be taken seriously when they are normally just thought up at the spur of the moment? How can two kingdoms really go to war? Do both kings just say "I HAET U!!11" and then send their armies in to attack?

The old kingdoms lacked balance. They lacked structure. They lacked consistency. There was corruption, there was inactivity. There was favoritism.

I don't really think anyone here is totally grasping my concept of an npc king. I think most people are just automatically assuming that it means the king will be useless and you will go and talk to him and he will assign you chores and you do them and level up and it's all very robotic. But that is not the case.

I want a successful server and I want to feel confident that it will succeed. Putting my server into the hands of different people and letting them play king does not seem wise. I will be waiting on the sidelines to say "I told you so" when a kingdom on Lance's server collapses due to corruption, inactivity, or lack of members.

[WanDaMan]

Originally Posted by konidias

You don't know what I'm making. Are you part of the dev team? No. I really don't care for your opinion because you don't like me in the first place so anything I make is going to be terrible in your eyes.

I've seen what you're making and In my own opinion I can say it is nothing like Graal 2001.

No, I am not apart of the development team.

Woah, you want players to give you their opinion but you refuse to take in mine because you believe I hate you?

I don't hate you.

I like'd Oasis, if you recall I wouldn't of made an overworld to get your account upgraded so you could finish Oasis .

Originally Posted by konidias

I'm making this playerworld because I enjoy doing stuff like this and I want to be able to relive the good times I had on 2k1. This is not my job and I'm not getting paid to do it. I'd appreciate it if people didn't treat it as such. If you don't like my idea, that is fine. You don't have to play my server, you can play Lance's. But it's quite funny how all of the sudden when Lance announces a release date for his server, I lose a lot of supporters for mine.

The old times never had an new tileset. You took on the task of reviving Graal2001, you yourself have brought this on.

How in hell can we play yours and Lance's?

I never supported your version of Graal2001.

Originally Posted by konidias

It shows me that most people just want ANYTHING. I'm sure Lance is very thrilled about taking my supporters away, and it shows in his smug remarks that he has made. This isn't a contest and it never was. I never intended to be competing with Lance's 2k1.

I don't want anything; I'd rather have

Originally Posted by konidias

the good times

back then. I don't want something new and not Graal2001.

Ofcourse you're competing, only one server can go online

[Zurkiba]

Originally Posted by konidias

It's really a shame that so many people see things in black or white. How many servers have you played online that had an npc character as a king? My guess is ZERO. Then why are you so confident when you say that my idea won't work? Is it because you're afraid of the unknown?

Valikorlia had NPC Kings, the Archduke took the role as King. No one liked the NPC King... in the end they fell through RP Means because there was no leader to actually do things.

Originally Posted by konidias

In my opinion there are some people that don't like my npc king idea simply because they want themselves or their friends to be in power. My idea is going to put several people out of power. Which I guess is a turn off to those several people.

I can assure you, the people who have stated they do not wish for an NPC King do not know what's going on with the kingdoms. Therefore your assumptions that they only want their friends in power is invalid as they do not know who is leading the kingdoms.

Originally Posted by konidias

When I started my revision I thought about kingdoms and at first I didn't even want them at all. Because they are such a large project and they aren't NEEDED for roleplaying. But then I figured it would be better to have them anyway... But then I began to think about the problems that would arise from this:

There are three types of roleplaying: Battle, Social, and Political. The point is that the political aspects of roleplaying takes roughly 50% of the pie chart. If you cut the political roleplaying of the server then the RP community will fall.

Originally Posted by konidias

1. Who leads each kingdom? Do you just draw names out of hat? Do they get voted in through a popularity contest? Do they get the position because they are friends with staff?

They get positions because they have been identified as good leaders and good roleplayers.

Originally Posted by konidias

2. Will this person do a good job? Will they be active? What happens if they are inactive? What happens if they are corrupt?

They would be selected because they have done good jobs in the past. I'm sure that anyone is smart enough to judge if a person would be active. If they're inactive then the kingdom revolts. If they're corrupt?... this has no real bearing on anything, they can be corrupt and still produce a wonderful kingdom.

Originally Posted by konidias

3. How can any RP events be taken seriously when they are normally just thought up at the spur of the moment? How can two kingdoms really go to war? Do both kings just say "I HAET U!!11" and then send their armies in to attack?

Wars are interactions between the people of the kingdom to resolve a conflict. I know Gryffon well enough to know that all wars will have to go through him first.

Originally Posted by konidias

The old kingdoms lacked balance. They lacked structure. They lacked consistency. There was corruption, there was inactivity. There was favoritism.

I will give you one of the above statements, favoritism. But is there really anything wrong with that? Because of Favoritism I was able to make the Zormite kingdom into something after they changed leaders every other day. They ended up conquering the world too.

Originally Posted by konidias

I don't really think anyone here is totally grasping my concept of an npc king. I think most people are just automatically assuming that it means the king will be useless and you will go and talk to him and he will assign you chores and you do them and level up and it's all very robotic. But that is not the case.

All I'm hearing is
"We'll let that guy who runs around in an all orange body going 'LAWLZ I NEKKID!' and he'll be the Duke of your kingdom"

Originally Posted by konidias

I want a successful server and I want to feel confident that it will succeed. Putting my server into the hands of different people and letting them play king does not seem wise. I will be waiting on the sidelines to say "I told you so" when a kingdom on Lance's server collapses due to corruption, inactivity, or lack of members.

Granted, kingdom leaders do have an effect on the server as a whole. However there are still two issues that you are blind to see.

There are higher ups then the kingdom leader who also have the power to change those kingdom leaders.

Secondly - There will always be a high leader of a kingdom, rather you like it or not. Therefore your judgements against a player king will still happen.

[protagonist]

Originally Posted by Lance

But I'm confused. You said there was no such thing as negative progress, and that any change would be for the better.

I didn't say that Koni's version would fail, I simply said that it wouldn't be something that I would be enthusiastic about. His 2k1 option would still be superior as long as you continue to be lazy and leave it UC, where it will never go anywhere.

[Brad]

popularity contests rule

[GryffonDurime]

Originally Posted by konidias

It's really a shame that so many people see things in black or white. How many servers have you played online that had an npc character as a king? My guess is ZERO. Then why are you so confident when you say that my idea won't work? Is it because you're afraid of the unknown?

In my opinion there are some people that don't like my npc king idea simply because they want themselves or their friends to be in power. My idea is going to put several people out of power. Which I guess is a turn off to those several people.

When I started my revision I thought about kingdoms and at first I didn't even want them at all. Because they are such a large project and they aren't NEEDED for roleplaying. But then I figured it would be better to have them anyway... But then I began to think about the problems that would arise from this:

1. Who leads each kingdom? Do you just draw names out of hat? Do they get voted in through a popularity contest? Do they get the position because they are friends with staff?

2. Will this person do a good job? Will they be active? What happens if they are inactive? What happens if they are corrupt?

3. How can any RP events be taken seriously when they are normally just thought up at the spur of the moment? How can two kingdoms really go to war? Do both kings just say "I HAET U!!11" and then send their armies in to attack?

The old kingdoms lacked balance. They lacked structure. They lacked consistency. There was corruption, there was inactivity. There was favoritism.

I don't really think anyone here is totally grasping my concept of an npc king. I think most people are just automatically assuming that it means the king will be useless and you will go and talk to him and he will assign you chores and you do them and level up and it's all very robotic. But that is not the case.

I want a successful server and I want to feel confident that it will succeed. Putting my server into the hands of different people and letting them play king does not seem wise. I will be waiting on the sidelines to say "I told you so" when a kingdom on Lance's server collapses due to corruption, inactivity, or lack of members.

Thank you, Koni. Thank you for spitting in my face, and Vermain's, and Ghost Pirate's. Because surely under their administration, favoratism and idiocy ran rampant. Player-kings can work with the proper players. And I assure you, the roster currently in progress IS good.

[Googi]

This is almost as bad as your idea to get rid of playable Bomys.

[Amagius]

Whoever can churn out a server that is interesting, fun, and has the atmosphere for roleplaying that Graal 2001 has my vote. I have no clue what either person has done, and neither does anyone besides the owners and perhaps a few other people.

[kenyonandelliot]

Originally Posted by Googi

This is almost as bad as your idea to get rid of playable Bomys.

no not the bomy's!

[protagonist]

I have no problem with Koni's ideas and a new tilesets, etc. He just has to be more tolerant that some people are going to want to keep 2k1 the same and he has to work to please those people too. He's acting too much like Lance with the "you guys have no clue what you're talking about" thing. Enlighten us, Koni; don't patronize us. We've all had to deal with that too much already.

[konidias]

When you come up with an idea that you think is good and then people flat out reject it without even giving it a chance... it doesn't make you want to be very open to what THEY have to say.

I really don't thing arguing about it is going to matter right now. I shouldn't have said anything at all. When it is released you can either play it or not play it.

I'm just kind of tired of people claiming I'm being egotistical or selfish because I refuse to work with Lance. I don't want to work with him, it would not be fun and I would not enjoy it, therefore I don't do it. I'm already investing my time and effort into this project, I'm sure as heck not going to do it if I'm not enjoying it.