So many playerworlds...

[zell12]

So little players.

The majority of players play Graal Kingdoms, United Nations, Era, Babylon, and now Zone. However, there are many more other servers with 0 players constantly, even the classic playerworlds. I think that mabey this is a waste of peoples money. Some people should get together, and combine ideas, then make one server. It would do better then 3 or 4 different ones. Would probably attract more players to Graal as well.
What do you guys think the Graal Administration can do to help? Mabey the players can combine ideas and make one playerworld? What do you think?

[osrs]

If people make original servers, i'm pretty sure that they will get a good count of players. I think the playerworld-renting thing is for you improve your skills and know more how to manager/work on a playerworld, not to get players.

[WHIPENIE4]

half of them wasted their money. more then half. all they are is wasted space ready to fail. because all the good Developers are taken

[DMRenegade]

Originally posted by WHIPENIE4
half of them wasted their money. more then half. all they are is wasted space ready to fail. because all the good Developers are taken

wasted or not, you can't deny them the chance to try

[zell12]

No, but we can offer them jobs on our own servers for free.

[Milkdude99]

Originally posted by DMRenegade

wasted or not, you can't deny them the chance to try

We all choose what we want to spend our money on and who are we to deny someone , even if it is a waste of time , it is their money to waste if they choose so? I agree with DM on this.. Making one big playerworld defeats the purpose of variety, that would be fine if we all liked the same thing but we don't and so we have many different Playerworlds to feed our own personal taste. Are their too many? I tend to agree there are too many to support the player base but then again you cannot limit the players like that. It has it's good points and bad points so we just have to make the best of it as it is.

[ETD]

Originally posted by zell12
What do you guys think the Graal Administration can do to help? Mabey the players can combine ideas and make one playerworld? What do you think?

I think that Private worlds should be rated by their potential. Then those with high potential should recieve scripting help from the GST
:P
and maybe other help, if they need it... to help them get off their feet, and develop faster.

[--Chris--]

Personally I believe they need to be of a certain quality to reach the Classic tab, not just throw in whatever is best even though their standards are low. I'd like to see the tab only have the following:

Graal: The Adventure
Graal 2001
Era
Zone
Valikorlia (only because it's an RP server which doesn't neccessarily have to excel content wise and like MG said, variety is good.)

Other than the above, only the things with worthwhile, good quality content such as Archiac, Sanstrata, Oasis and New World should go up. The tab should also be limited to the amount of servers that can be up at one time, I'd personally say somewhere around 5 (not including "Stefan servers.")
Not only will it be easier to determine when a PW is actually being disliked (if it has no or a low playerbase with a fairly small amount of PWs on the tab, then you know something is definately wrong) and needs to be replaced but they'll be easier to moderate by the GGT, GST and PWA, motivate UC playerworlds to better their production and give a good impression to new comers when they see the type of player-made servers chosen to represent Graal.
I believe the 5 servers I mentioned that can currently go up will have a pretty nice playerbase (which they all essentially need, especially Graal 2k1) and over-all more players would have a good time.

[Kristi]

Originally posted by --Chris--
Personally I believe they need to be of a certain quality to reach the Classic tab, not just throw in whatever is best even though their standards are low. I'd like to see the tab only have the following:

Graal: The Adventure
Graal 2001
Era
Zone
Valikorlia (only because it's an RP server which doesn't neccessarily have to excel content wise and like MG said, variety is good.)

Other than the above, only the things with worthwhile, good quality content such as Archiac, Sanstrata, Oasis and New World should go up. The tab should also be limited to the amount of servers that can be up at one time, I'd personally say somewhere around 5 (not including "Stefan servers.")
Not only will it be easier to determine when a PW is actually being disliked (if it has no or a low playerbase with a fairly small amount of PWs on the tab, then you know something is definately wrong) and needs to be replaced but they'll be easier to moderate by the GGT, GST and PWA, motivate UC playerworlds to better their production and give a good impression to new comers when they see the type of player-made servers chosen to represent Graal.
I believe the 5 servers I mentioned that can currently go up will have a pretty nice playerbase (which they all essentially need, especially Graal 2k1) and over-all more players would have a good time.

Yes, this is the perfect idea because everyone likes your opinions.
Its funny how you didnt include Unholy Nation in your list... take a hint. They have the highest playerbase, they did something right! Obviously your opinions arent good enough if they including taking down something that holds a lot of players.

If everything was removed and the serverlist shortened, and they made it policy to keep it small, then what? When you make a server do you have to "bump" another off to get yours up? thats a rediculous system. Public servers would have loyalty. Why would I be inspired to pay for and start a new server if i knew id have little chance ever getting it up no matter how good it was?

[davidpsy]

Originally posted by Kristi


Yes, this is the perfect idea because everyone likes your opinions.
Its funny how you didnt include Unholy Nation in your list...
take a hint. They have the highest playerbase, they did something right! Obviously your opinions arent good enough if they including taking down something that holds a lot of players.

Un is ok. I think they do so well because they have a player base.
I remember before graal went all p2p practially no body was on UN. That might of been because it was a p2p server.

Originally posted by Kristi

If everything was removed and the serverlist shortened, and they made it policy to keep it small, then what? When you make a server do you have to "bump" another off to get yours up? thats a rediculous system. Public servers would have loyalty. Why would I be inspired to pay for and start a new server if i knew id have little chance ever getting it up no matter how good it was?

If your server was better then everyone elses it would stay up. I personally think the servers that are up should stay up and just let more and more on.

[--Chris--]

"Yes, this is the perfect idea because everyone likes your opinions. "

What in the blue hell are you talking about?

"Its funny how you didnt include Unholy Nation in your list... take a hint. They have the highest playerbase, they did something right! ."

Unholy Nation only has a high playerbase because it has been around for quite some time, sure their playerbase is one of the highest but that's only due to past player loyalty while it was actually considered something new + great back in the day. UN's gameplay isn't original nor appealing now, it's like a lacking integration of Graal 2001 and Graal: The Adventure and there isn't really much of a point to playing it.
Newbies notice the high playerbase (due to past loyalty) and play there over other PWs with the same dull, unoriginal concept and first impression making it always stay at the top - it's like a never ending cycle. Now their content is outdated and not really entertaining. Unholy Nation is like the Graal dating service, no-one does anything there except sit around in levels "[looking 4 g/f]" ;x
Also, if I recall correctly they once had an npc that saved attributes on trial accounts (could be wrong but I heard something of this once.) <--That would have attracted alot of players.
Taking it UC a bit is motive for improvements and if it's good enough to get back up (by meeting higher neccessary standards if this is applied) then it'll surely get an even greater playerbase See if UN maintains this playerbase when previously mentioned PWs like Oasis are released

"Obviously your opinions arent good enough if they including taking down something that holds a lot of players. "

Seriously, learn to word yourself better, that makes just about no sense. I wonder if there's "Hooked On Phonics For Dummies" available in stores now.

"If everything was removed and the serverlist shortened, and they made it policy to keep it small, then what? When you make a server do you have to "bump" another off to get yours up? thats a rediculous system."

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but that's the current system. If you look at the playerlist you'd see 7 PWs not including Graal 2001 and Graal: The Adventure, I believe the max is 10 or so and every month Spark switches around which goes up and which goes back down. The ones "bumped" are usually the ones with a small amount/least amount of players or by request. My suggestion is only putting up the ones of good quality rather than anything that passes minimum requirements to be considered a "completed" PW, reasons/benefits are in my previous post.

"Public servers would have loyalty."

Neat, you helped backup my point about UN:

Basically you're saying if you want to get your server up you can't because the ones up at the time, even if not very good quality should always remain up because they only maintain a decent playerbase due to loyalty. What you're stating here is basically what you argued against when refering to UN, refer to: "Its funny how you didnt include Unholy Nation in your list... take a hint. They have the highest playerbase, they did something right!" <---Consider that's in response to me stating only PWs with good quality should go up.

"Why would I be inspired to pay for and start a new server if i knew id have little chance ever getting it up no matter how good it was?"

Again you're making no sense. Good servers go up, bad servers go down but then again, that system is "r_e_diculous" remember?

Edit for Donald:
"I personally think the servers that are up should stay up and just let more and more on."

I disagree and I'm sure I could find alot more reasons why it's more of a bad idea than good, here are two:
1)It would just be that much harder for globals to moderate them.
2)Wide-spread small playerbase = unhealthy servers.

[WHIPENIE4]

heh Classic is 4th active Playerworld according to graal.net, Kingdoms would probably fall in at second so..... Lately we've had a player count above 50 each day from about 4 till 9PM

[syltburk]

It would only be conflicts by the staff

[Kristi]

Chris, you speak as if quality is the only issue and it's irrevelvant to what the players want. Your weak arguements are coupled with attacks on my grammer (a sure sign of a lack of arguement.)

Take UN down and force them to become even greater? They have the highest playercount, hense they are both keeping customers satisified and drawing in money for graal. Until that changes, they have no need. I remember why I play graal, and its because i like to spar, pk, talk, maybe play a fun game or two, etc. UN provides great sparring, fun pking, and their CTF is incredibly fun, they inbody timeless interests and aspect. As amazing as oasis may be (or any other server), and make you ooh and aah, you will not ooh and aah forever. Why do you think Levi has been selling the same generic jeans for over 100 years and Paco Jeans died when so popular at a time?

I do agree with Donald; let worthy things up without taking others down if they're good enough.

[syltburk]

Graal2001
UN
Graal Kingdoms
Classic (cuz its history and everybody know that Classic is the place for the old people)
babylon