Petition to bring back the old playerworld system

[salesman]

Originally Posted by Inverness

Everyone has to start somewhere.

Right, they do. Your idea makes it much harder for developers to start out. Where do you think people who want to learn to develop go? They usually end up on some random UC server that doesn't make it anywhere.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by salesman

Right, they do. Your idea makes it much harder for developers to start out. Where do you think people who want to learn to develop go? They usually end up on some random UC server that doesn't make it anywhere.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, you seem to be pointing out what is wrong with the current system rather than why my idea makes it harder for developers to start out.

[salesman]

Originally Posted by Inverness

I don't understand what you're trying to say, you seem to be pointing out what is wrong with the current system rather than why my idea makes it harder for developers to start out.

I'm saying if it weren't for random UC servers, many developers wouldn't have anywhere to go to learn. That's how I started out, and I know tons of other people who learned to develop the same way.

Your idea will make developing exclusive, and that's not how it should be.

And before you pull the "they have Testbed" card, we all know that developing on Testbed is not the same as being a part of creating a playerworld.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by salesman

I'm saying if it weren't for random UC servers, many developers wouldn't have anywhere to go to learn. That's how I started out, and I know tons of other people who learned to develop the same way.

Your idea will make developing exclusive, and that's not how it should be.

And before you pull the "they have Testbed" card, we all know that developing on Testbed is not the same as being a part of creating a playerworld.

Returning to the old system wouldn't make UC servers disappear, there would simply be less. You're really not making sense, or just don't understand how the old system worked.

It is a quality versus quantity argument. The old system resulted in quality, specifically every other classic playerworld besides Zodiac. The new system results in quantity, Zodiac and a plethora of infinitely under construction playerworlds.

You're not making a very convincing argument. You don't have to have an RC somewhere to learn to make content. Of course, that is how it used to be, scripting is the exception to that now.

[salesman]

Originally Posted by Inverness

Returning to the old system wouldn't make UC servers disappear, there would simply be less. You're really not making sense, or just don't understand how the old system worked.

It is a quality versus quantity argument. The old system resulted in quality, specifically every other classic playerworld besides Zodiac. The new system results in quantity, Zodiac and a plethora of infinitely under construction playerworlds.

You're not making a very convincing argument. You don't have to have an RC somewhere to learn to make content. Of course, that is how it used to be, scripting is the exception to that now.

I'm not making a convincing argument? You're basing your opinion off of an assumption that limiting UC servers to people who have already thoroughly planned out their project will somehow magically breed successful servers. Why? A planned project can fail just as easily as one that is not, and there's nothing stopping you from planning out a project ahead of time already.

Have you considered the fact that there's now several servers to compete with as being why there are fewer "successful" servers now? I'm sure it was easy to become successful when players didn't really have many other options. Graal's population is already spread thin as it is, making it very difficult for a new server to get a starting player-base especially with so much competition. Correlation != causation. The playerworld system is not necessarily the cause of newer servers being unable to succeed.

I can see this system completely backfiring and turning even more developers (current and potential) away from this game. Where you see bad in the playerworld system, I see good. I think the best thing Graal has to offer is that anyone can start their own project with almost no restrictions. If they fail...so what? At least they gained experience that can help them somewhere else. Not to mention they just paid for your home server to stay hosted.

I've learned so much by working on several UC servers that I probably can't even name anymore, and I'm sure that is true for most of the developers reading this.

[geneticfrog]

Originally Posted by salesman

I'm not making a convincing argument? You're basing your opinion off of an assumption that limiting UC servers to people who have already thoroughly planned out their project will somehow magically breed successful servers. Why? A planned project can fail just as easily as one that is not, and there's nothing stopping you from planning out a project ahead of time already.

Have you considered the fact that there's now several servers to compete with as being why there are fewer "successful" servers now? I'm sure it was easy to become successful when players didn't really have many other options. Graal's population is already spread thin as it is, making it very difficult for a new server to get a starting player-base especially with so much competition. Correlation != causation. The playerworld system is not necessarily the cause of newer servers being unable to succeed.

I can see this system completely backfiring and turning even more developers (current and potential) away from this game. Where you see bad in the playerworld system, I see good. I think the best thing Graal has to offer is that anyone can start their own project with almost no restrictions. If they fail...so what? At least they gained experience that can help them somewhere else. Not to mention they just paid for your home server to stay hosted.

I've learned so much by working on several UC servers that I probably can't even name anymore, and I'm sure that is true for most of the developers reading this.

I do not agree. Currently you need to pay for gold (or get their parents to) so that they can even get on any UC servers... If someone wants to LEARN dev theres test beds for scripts and for level and gfx you dont need to be on a UC server for feed back on either.

Even with the current system someone looking to learn dev doesnt MAKE a server thats just dumb... they JOIN servers.

With that said that means that if some groups of players manage to get a free server that still allows other people to learn dev underthat server if those people acutally hire him.

Have free servers and free dev will GREATLY increase the traffic graal is getting with UC servers. Really if we keep the system people need to pay 100 bucks to start deving.

if you switch it anyone can practice on any free server... I dont see how changing the system would make it worse.... I only see good things happening.

People can submit gfx to sites including this forum and for levels they can submit it on graal. For scripts they can still request a server bed or they could work alnog side other people on "free rquested servesr".

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by geneticfrog

I do not agree. Currently you need to pay for gold (or get their parents to) so that they can even get on any UC servers... If someone wants to LEARN dev theres test beds for scripts and for level and gfx you dont need to be on a UC server for feed back on either.

Even with the current system someone looking to learn dev doesnt MAKE a server thats just dumb... they JOIN servers.

Someone has to make the server. If we really were to return to the old method of playerworld creation which required you to plan out your server and find a dedicated staff team ahead of time, what room would there be for developers just getting started? If you were a server owner, would you really hire the scripters who can't script, the levelers who can't make levels, the graphic artists who can't draw?

Somehow limiting the options that Graal's current developers have is supposed to increase the number of available developers. All it's really going to do is scare them off.

People can submit gfx to sites including this forum and for levels they can submit it on graal. For scripts they can still request a server bed or they could work alnog side other people on "free rquested servesr".

Thus far, Testbed has proved largely ineffective at teaching new scripters. On the contrary, Graalians have been learning to script for personal projects for the past several years, and it's been working. The problem is not that Graal doesn't have enough developers, it's that Graal doesn't have enough players. Developing on Graal just isn't appealing to serious programmers when they could be getting far more traffic elsewhere. Players get involved with development because they enjoy Graal.

[salesman]

Originally Posted by geneticfrog

I do not agree. Currently you need to pay for gold (or get their parents to) so that they can even get on any UC servers... If someone wants to LEARN dev theres test beds for scripts and for level and gfx you dont need to be on a UC server for feed back on either.

I've already suggested better alternatives to help developers. While the Testbed Server can help you, the most effective way to learn, from my own personal experience, is to actually participate in a creating a playerworld.

Originally Posted by geneticfrog

Even with the current system someone looking to learn dev doesnt MAKE a server thats just dumb... they JOIN servers.

Right. And the servers they join are exactly the types of servers that this plan proposes to remove. As Chris said, what makes you think a thoroughly planned development project will be willing to take on a newbie who doesn't really know what they're doing yet?

Originally Posted by geneticfrog

Have free servers and free dev will GREATLY increase the traffic graal is getting with UC servers. Really if we keep the system people need to pay 100 bucks to start deving.

if you switch it anyone can practice on any free server... I dont see how changing the system would make it worse.... I only see good things happening.

"Free" can have many meanings and doesn't have to refer to the monetary cost. The OP's proposed playerworld system is most certainly not as free as the current because it greatly limits who can develop.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by salesman

I'm not making a convincing argument? You're basing your opinion off of an assumption that limiting UC servers to people who have already thoroughly planned out their project will somehow magically breed successful servers. Why? A planned project can fail just as easily as one that is not, and there's nothing stopping you from planning out a project ahead of time already.

My petition is the result of a fact and an opinion. The fact being that Zodiac is the only classic playerworld produced by the new system. The opinion being that less servers means more developers per server and greater chance of success.

It seems logical enough to me that UC servers will have a better chance of succeeding if there are more developers to go around.

Originally Posted by salesman

Have you considered the fact that there's now several servers to compete with as being why there are fewer "successful" servers now? I'm sure it was easy to become successful when players didn't really have many other options. Graal's population is already spread thin as it is, making it very difficult for a new server to get a starting player-base especially with so much competition. Correlation != causation. The playerworld system is not necessarily the cause of newer servers being unable to succeed.

Considered and discarded. You're making bigger assumptions than I am. Starting player bases for new servers aren't relevant in this context, because Zodiac has been the only new server.

Originally Posted by salesman

I can see this system completely backfiring and turning even more developers (current and potential) away from this game. Where you see bad in the playerworld system, I see good. I think the best thing Graal has to offer is that anyone can start their own project with almost no restrictions. If they fail...so what? At least they gained experience that can help them somewhere else. Not to mention they just paid for your home server to stay hosted.

Starting your own project whenever you want is one of if not the only good thing about the current system. The negatives, such as thinning the developer pool and requiring a paid account to both rent the server and for staff to work on it outweigh the positive.

Originally Posted by salesman

I've learned so much by working on several UC servers that I probably can't even name anymore, and I'm sure that is true for most of the developers reading this.

And I learned so much working on several UC servers before the new system was introduced. What is your point?

I didn't need to have experience working on a server to develop my level-making skills to the point where they could get me hired.

Originally Posted by cbk1994

Someone has to make the server. If we really were to return to the old method of playerworld creation which required you to plan out your server and find a dedicated staff team ahead of time, what room would there be for developers just getting started? If you were a server owner, would you really hire the scripters who can't script, the levelers who can't make levels, the graphic artists who can't draw?

Again, you don't need to be hired to start developing your skills. You're thinking in a box.

Originally Posted by cbk1994

Somehow limiting the options that Graal's current developers have is supposed to increase the number of available developers. All it's really going to do is scare them off.

One of the things that can prevent me from working is the idea that my work will go to waste for one reason or another. You should see where I'm going with this.



Anyhow, methinks a good interim move to make short of rolling back to the old system would be to make hosted servers free to develop for. It would be a good way to draw developers to those servers if it doesn't cost you money.

Edit: Question for Chris and salesman, did you start developing before or after current system was introduced?

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by Inverness

It seems logical enough to me that UC servers will have a better chance of succeeding if there are more developers to go around.

Why would there be more developers? I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't be sticking around if I wasn't working on Era, and I don't see any reason to believe any of the other various scripters on UC servers would stick around.

And I learned so much working on several UC servers before the new system was introduced. What is your point?

The point is that UC servers give you a place to learn to script while doing practical things and seeing your scripts in action. Testbed doesn't cut it.

I didn't need to have experience working on a server to develop my level-making skills to the point where they could get me hired.
Again, you don't need to be hired to start developing your skills. You're thinking in a box.

Where else would you learn to script? Testbed? I don't really think it's a secret that Testbed is hardly used by new scripters.

One of the things that can prevent me from working is the idea that my work will go to waste for one reason or another. You should see where I'm going with this.

Then you should switch projects. There are plenty of servers that could use an extra scripter where your work would be used immediately. What's your point?

Anyhow, methinks a good interim move to make short of rolling back to the old system would be to make hosted servers free to develop for. It would be a good way to draw developers to those servers if it doesn't cost you money.

I fully support a system which allows UC servers to hire a certain number of workers without them requiring gold.

Edit: Question for Chris and salesman, did you start developing before or after current system was introduced?

I was before, Sales was after (though he played before).

[tempandrew]

The economic side of this is kind of confusing. There is no doubt that the player count was indeed much much higher when the prices were lower, and I have no doubts that the price raising and especially the removal of lifetime classic is at fault for such a huge drop in the activity on Graal. However, the new prices that are proposed by Unix/Stefan do bring in a lot more money with monthly subscriptions. But consider this, exactly how far do you think this will go? More players will drop, they'll need more money, so they raise prices. More people give up on paying that monthly fee, the price rises. To be honest, I think if Graal would be changed just to that old one-time lifetime fee of maybe more than before (used to be $19, could be raised to $25 or so), and the selection of 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 months of graal at a time at maybe a few bucks a month.

However, the playerworld charge is what I find really to be insanity. In most cases, servers that are in UC are not helpful of Graal's future, and will probably never prosper merely because the staff isn't disciplined or serious enough. But sometimes servers are actually potential future pieces of Graal, so you're really paying to give Unix more content for his game. However, a big problem with actually trying to make a quality server is the problem mentioned before, the shortage of players. A shortage of players means a shortage of developers, which means a shortage of production. I propose the idea of free server purchasing with occasional inspection by multiple global staff assigned to inspection. If the server does not seem to be keeping up with development, it is shut down and no money is lost, no extra server space is taken from Graal. On the other hand, some servers may prosper, and eventually contribute to the game that Graal advertises. I hate the idea of paying $70 every 6 months (over $10 a month!) to attempt to help Graal develop into a larger and better game. I just don't understand that.

Graal is falling into a limbo here. Servers can be lent out to any idiot and worked on by any amount of unqualified workers. If there were a smaller selection of servers that actually pass their occasional inspections, the needle in a haystack players that actually have good developmental talent that are working at deadbeat servers can help contribute to the quality servers that have a fighting chance to become classic. Would work out really well in my opinion.

And maybe, since i know some people do this, there'd be an option to buy "Dev Servers", merely for development testing and building and maybe just for having fun that you could purchase without the fear of failing inspection. Those would require monthly payments.

I probably just typed a big waste of time since Unix is going to be his usual self and continue with his own ideas, but I guess it's worth a shot.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

Why would there be more developers? I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't be sticking around if I wasn't working on Era, and I don't see any reason to believe any of the other various scripters on UC servers would stick around.

Have you been paying attention to anything I have said?

Originally Posted by cbk1994

The point is that UC servers give you a place to learn to script while doing practical things and seeing your scripts in action. Testbed doesn't cut it.

Testbed is more active than most UC servers. It is also sufficient for you to get started on the basics of scripting and limited applications before you move onto another job for more advanced applications.

Originally Posted by cbk1994

Where else would you learn to script? Testbed? I don't really think it's a secret that Testbed is hardly used by new scripters.

Yes, Testbed. And perhaps that is because there isn't clear direction as far as tutorials go for new scripters.

Originally Posted by cbk1994

Then you should switch projects. There are plenty of servers that could use an extra scripter where your work would be used immediately. What's your point?

The point is that less UC servers means each has more chance of succeeding with same pool of developers.

Edit: This arguing is turning into a waste of time. None of the attempted arguments against the OP seem to address (imho) the overarching arguments made for the rollback.

[Rufus]

I haven't really been following the argument, but I'll throw in my two cents about your idea.

I remember in 2001 when I attempted to create a server with my cousin and it was offline. I still have the files on floppy disk somewhere. The server itself was just Classic but in a different setting, but that was the same for every other server. Mithica, Babylon, Andor, Providence; all servers that were released to the public but with little difference between them, and look at where they are now. When the Playerworld Renting system came out I made the purchase and worked with people like Tony Rivers, Massokre, and Mykel, but nothing came out of that either because it was more about having our own staff tools than having an outlet to develop. In 2007 I thought I had the right ideas and worked with people like Tom, Yen, and Crono but again nothing came of it either. The stuff we made on that server still looks nice today, but we struggled on a direction and there was a constant battle with motivation because of how the game was (and still is) in general.

Times have changed, and clone servers are no longer accepted into the mix. We're striving something better, but there's always a constant battle against something. While I might just fail at coordinating and developing, I don't really believe I learned anything from any of those experiences I had either. It wasn't until I saw someone who had initiative and creativity (Konidias) that my outlook drastically changed. Being offline or online, it didn't make a difference, and it didn't magically change my ability to create a decent server. People are still going to want to work on their own projects because they'll still have that opportunity to do so, even if it is just a tiny chance of being accepted. People are still going to lack the motivation and skills needed to pull off something great. People are still going to struggle to get developers to work on what they believe are "promising" projects. People are still going to fail at making servers.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by Rufus

I haven't really been following the argument, but I'll throw in my two cents about your idea.

<snip>

So we need some device to build the motivation of developers and potential developers.

[Imperialistic]

Inverness, sounds good but uhh.. You can't base the whole arguement around the "more Classic servers means more players buying subscriptions" thing.

And I totally have to agree with what Rufus said, he made absolute sense.