Graal Kingdoms Kingdoms

Tigairius · #1 03-27-2009, 09:38 PM

There are a couple of pretty inactive kingdoms on Graal Kingdoms right now. We don't have the playercount to really sustain useful kingdoms.

So, in an attempt to make Kingdoms more useful, if we were to remove a kingdom or two, which kingdom(s) do you think should be removed?

cyan3 · #2 03-27-2009, 09:41 PM

Forest is the most inactive kingdom with almost no active members.

sango_ku · #3 03-27-2009, 09:43 PM

Forest !

bioboi · #4 03-27-2009, 09:44 PM

I think leadership is the problem, not so much the Kingdom as the problem.

Googi · #5 03-27-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyan3

Forest is the most inactive kingdom with almost no active members.

Then removing it won't do anything to increase the concentration of members in the other kingdoms. If you really want to increase the concentration of members in the other kingdoms by removing a kingdom, you have to remove an active one.

cyan3 · #6 03-27-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bioboi

I think leadership is the problem, not so much the Kingdom as the problem.

The leaders for Zormite and Forest are very inactive. Samurai's leader is active but not online much. The leader of CP is not active however Arri is doing a good job of running the kingdom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Googi

Then removing it won't do anything to increase the concentration of members in the other kingdoms. If you really want to increase the concentration of members in the other kingdoms by removing a kingdom, you have to remove an active one.

The 2 most active kingdoms are Dustari and CP. For example if CP was removed most of the memebers would join Dustari.

Tigairius · #7 03-27-2009, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Googi

Then removing it won't do anything to increase the concentration of members in the other kingdoms. If you really want to increase the concentration of members in the other kingdoms by removing a kingdom, you have to remove an active one.

You bring up a good point, but one of the reasons I'd like to remove a kingdom is to give more space for future updates on land that can be traveled to by ship. Right now I think some of these kingdoms are a waste of space.

Felix_Xenophobe · #8 03-27-2009, 09:55 PM

imo having only two kingdoms would be enough.

bioboi · #9 03-27-2009, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix_Xenophobe

imo having only two kingdoms would be enough.

I like this idea, because maybe then people wouldn't be so afraid to war each other without 3 other kingdoms jumping in.

Nature2 · #10 03-27-2009, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix_Xenophobe

imo having only two kingdoms would be enough.

i would love only 2 kingdoms!

Maxo14 · #11 03-27-2009, 10:03 PM

2 Kingdoms sounds like a good idea.... Pirates vs Dustari ;]

Googi · #12 03-27-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigairius

You bring up a good point, but one of the reasons I'd like to remove a kingdom is to give more space for future updates on land that can be traveled to by ship. Right now I think some of these kingdoms are a waste of space.

Unless you mean HDD space, I don't see the problem. Forest and Zormite each only get half the northern border of main. There's no reason any other kingdom couldn't share half its current border with a new island. It would even be better to put the updates on kingdom islands without removing the kingdoms. Inevitably people will complain about one kingdom or another getting an update seen as better than the others, but people don't quit over that kind of thing. People quit over kingdoms getting removed.

Hatred89 · #13 03-27-2009, 10:05 PM

Woah this thread got a lot of responses quick. Anyhow could you not just generate a new map and link them to the other side of the kingdoms? Like lets say you link something to the right side of Samurai and thats a new map with monsters on it. The right side of that new map would connect to the left side of Dustari? The top of this new land could be linked with Forest/Zormite and the bottom to CP? That way you can sail around GK as if its a circular world?
Its just one thought but yeah I do have to agree even when GK is active it doesn't seem to be active enough for all kingdoms to stay. I think removing one might be good enough and if it doesn't seem good enough in a month or two we remove another?

ImmortalHuman · #14 03-27-2009, 10:16 PM

Zormite is the currently the most inactive kingdom also being run by an inactive king.

cyan3 · #15 03-27-2009, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmortalHuman

Zormite is the currently the most inactive kingdom also being run by an inactive king.

Forest has been inactive for much longer than Zormite.

ImmortalHuman · #16 03-27-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyan3

Forest has been inactive for much longer than Zormite.

Ive seen more Developmental update's for Forest than any other kingdom

Along with the fact I'm constantly on debug and I see no one other than Tig usually on so you can't say Zormite is active period theres been mabye 1 person on in the last month (tyco).

I see 2 kingdom's with active development Forest/Rising Sun.

jonnyrocks2 · #17 03-27-2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmortalHuman

can't say Zormite is active period theres been mabye 1 person on in the last month (tyco).

OBJECTION!! I've been on.

ReBorn_Spirit · #18 03-27-2009, 10:34 PM

Oh I've been around at different times still.
My computer isnt letting me be on as much as I'd like. Just had to fix the powersupply, not sounding too good still.. but thats not the point.

I'm still around is the point.

cyan3 · #19 03-27-2009, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmortalHuman

Ive seen more Developmental update's for Forest than any other kingdom

Along with the fact I'm constantly on debug and I see no one other than Tig usually on so you can't say Zormite is active period theres been mabye 1 person on in the last month (tyco).

I see 2 kingdom's with active development Forest/Rising Sun.

Most of Forest development was done ages ago by Dayaa and Draxx.

Elizabeth · #20 03-27-2009, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnyrocks2

OBJECTION!!

agreed, someone's going to die if they remove zorm.

i think that the kingdoms are fine, personally.

ImmortalHuman · #21 03-27-2009, 10:37 PM

I agree to a point with Eliz but we should wait for Q2 update before we should think about removing anything more players = more active kingdoms .

Felix_Xenophobe · #22 03-27-2009, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

i think that the kingdoms are fine, personally.

Are you serious?

ReBorn_Spirit · #23 03-27-2009, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyan3

Most of Forest development was done ages ago by Dayaa and Draxx.

Actually we have had some work done with item graphics but none of it seems to be really ready to be put to use on GK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigairius

You bring up a good point, but one of the reasons I'd like to remove a kingdom is to give more space for future updates on land that can be traveled to by ship. Right now I think some of these kingdoms are a waste of space.

Tig I've had suggestions before that are possible to actually do and would make more then enough land available for future development. Suppose like everyone else though you don't wish to think outwards for GK development though.

Elizabeth · #24 03-27-2009, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix_Xenophobe

Are you serious?

i'm serious. removing a kingdom would be like removing a limb from graal kingdoms.

ReBorn_Spirit · #25 03-27-2009, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

i'm serious. removing a kingdom would be like removing a limb from graal kingdoms.

I agree. It would actually more then likely just make me resign from the game entirely. And I know others might even feel the same way.

To put it simply, there are more stable games that are far more entertaining that we could go play if something like this was to happen to GK.

Felix_Xenophobe · #26 03-27-2009, 10:42 PM

Reducing the number of kingdoms would result in a lolrp loss.
bawwww

Elizabeth · #27 03-27-2009, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix_Xenophobe

Reducing the number of kingdoms would result in a lolrp loss.
bawwww

i guarentee that the playercount would drop, too. it would be extremely bad considering the situation about the playercount currently.

Felix_Xenophobe · #28 03-27-2009, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

i guarentee that the playercount would drop, too. it would be extremely bad considering the situation about the playercount currently.

cool story.

so what do you suggest?

Hatred89 · #29 03-27-2009, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

I agree. It would actually more then likely just make me resign from the game entirely. And I know others might even feel the same way.

To put it simply, there are more stable games that are far more entertaining that we could go play if something like this was to happen to GK.

Even though I can see how Tig is thinking by removing a kingdom or two that it would boost the activity in other kingdoms and would make people want to play but I have to agree with ReBorn. I can some people quiting if their kingdom was removed. Having that type of theme kingdom might interest them and by having it removed they might not have enough reasons to continue playing. I might not like all the themes on GK but I know that each kingdom theme is liked by someone who plays.
Plus some people might not join any kingdom b/c they were attached to their kingdom which doesn't help the purpose of removing a kingdom.

ImmortalHuman · #30 03-27-2009, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

i'm serious. removing a kingdom would be like removing a limb from graal kingdoms.

Going in my profile

Snitch · #31 03-27-2009, 10:50 PM

This poll is completely pointless. People in one kingdom are going to ask other members to vote for a certain kingdom just to get rid it and so their kingdom is secured.

Tigairius · #32 03-27-2009, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snitch

This poll is completely pointless. People in one kingdom are going to ask other members to vote for a certain kingdom just to get rid it and so their kingdom is secured.

Actually, the results are pretty much the same as I expected, so I don't really see how that can be true.

REW_darklink200 · #33 03-27-2009, 10:57 PM

I try to be active, but recently it has been hard. I pop on now and then when I can due to my work schedule, but that doesn't mean I'm inactive at this point. And referring to Daya's idea, it would be good to use that, a 3x3 grid for islands.

ReBorn_Spirit · #34 03-27-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REW_darklink200

I try to be active, but recently it has been hard. I pop on now and then when I can due to my work schedule, but that doesn't mean I'm inactive at this point. And referring to Daya's idea, it would be good to use that, a 3x3 grid for islands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

...
Tig I've had suggestions before that are possible to actually do and would make more then enough land available for future development. Suppose like everyone else though you don't wish to think outwards for GK development though.

Many people have before suggested that we simple add in smaller surrounding islands.

I myself have posted a few times that the islands should be put into a logical grid cluster so that we could add in new gmap levels even if they were to be filled with just water until they were developed.

a 5x5 gmap grid could contain all the current gmaps

also a 5x5 grid could very easily be expanded to 6x6 or even 7x7 to double the available maps to work on or add to. Instead of removing content that keeps the few players around we do have, This would add in additional content and exploration opportunities and roleplay availabilities. Not to mention the countless events that could be done with a few more gmaps connected together in grid.

My idea was officially rejected because I believe it was Bjorn didnt feel it was necessary, or that it was a little too much work. Even though it would entittle perhaps editing a few levels on the warplinks. It would be an extremely easy task that is only adding in blank water maps for now.

Felix_Xenophobe · #35 03-27-2009, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

Many people have before suggested that we simple add in smaller surrounding islands.

I myself have posted a few times that the islands should be put into a logical grid cluster so that we could add in new gmap levels even if they were to be filled with just water until they were developed.

a 5x5 gmap grid could contain all the current gmaps

also a 5x5 grid could very easily be expanded to 6x6 or even 7x7 to double the available maps to work on or add to. Instead of removing content that keeps the few players around we do have, This would add in additional content and exploration opportunities and roleplay availabilities. Not to mention the countless events that could be done with a few more gmaps connected together in grid.

My idea was officially rejected because I believe it was Bjorn didnt feel it was necessary, or that it was a little too much work. Even though it would entittle perhaps editing a few levels on the warplinks. It would be an extremely easy task that is only adding in blank water maps for now.

It's not just a space issue. It's also about kingdom activity.

What you're suggesting solves the space issue but not kingdom activity.

ReBorn_Spirit · #36 03-27-2009, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix_Xenophobe

It's not just a space issue. It's also about kingdom activity.

What you're suggesting solves the space issue but not kingdom activity.

I must point out that in every attempt to add in new content, it has brought back more players to GK.

Felix_Xenophobe · #37 03-27-2009, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

I must point out that in every attempt to add in new content, it has brought back more players to GK.

For how long?

ReBorn_Spirit · #38 03-27-2009, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felix_Xenophobe

For how long?

That is the question now isn't it. After every small update it seems to have lasted a few days. But in larger updates upwards of months have been seen. Even holiday events have brought us back some players.

Snitch · #39 03-27-2009, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigairius

Actually, the results are pretty much the same as I expected, so I don't really see how that can be true.

I would think its because those kingdoms are the least active therefor they have hardly anyone to vote for the other kingdoms and defend themselves?

Felix_Xenophobe · #40 03-27-2009, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snitch

I would think its because those kingdoms are the least active therefor they have hardly anyone to vote for the other kingdoms and defend themselves?

Working as intended, no?

View Poll Results: Which kingdom(s) do you think should be removed?
Dustari	8	14.04%
Zormite	26	45.61%
Samurai	21	36.84%
Forest	28	49.12%
Pirates	11	19.30%
None, I think our kingdoms are fine.	10	17.54%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll