What classic's all about.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Plus quests which primarily follow a storyline and have direction provided to them, minus economy for the fact there isn't one as of yet. We do however plan to eventually disable global guilds and create a local guilds system (which mimics global guilds minus multi-guilding).

Nice, way to add minus points instead of positive ones.

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Crono

Nice, way to add minus points instead of positive ones.

The fact that there isn't (and essentially never has been) an economy makes sense iterating though, I'm asked "how do i get gralats?" and "can i buy hats?" fairly often.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

The fact that there isn't (and essentially never has been) an economy makes sense iterating though, I'm asked "how do i get gralats?" and "can i buy hats?" fairly often.

The minus points I was referring to were the storyline quests and and disabling global guilds. Economy is kind of up in the air, I don't really support a server that claims to be "Classic" to have a real economy. Dropping rupees and buying NPCs with rupees is (of course) alright with me, but not trading items.

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Crono

The minus points I was referring to were the storyline quests

These are targeted towards hooking the interest of new Graal players. They may not be to your, older or more casual players liking, but are part of a strategy intended to bring players to the game. This means there would potentially be more players to spar/pk/participate within events, which is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Crono

and disabling global guilds

Classic pre dates global guilds. Many of the best known global guilds were originally local guilds on Classic, restoring a system which prevents multi-guilding will resurrect some of the factors which made guilds great in the first place. Right now it's technically impossible to even create a new global guild, as well as transfer leadership or be disabled for inactivity. Global guild leaders will be able to create their guild locally, criteria permitting.

[Hezzy002]

You can't make global guilds any more?

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Hezzy002

You can't make global guilds any more?

You can, they just get stuck in the "pending" list forever or until removed regardless of obtaining 10 members. I recall it being said this is a result of some technical error which is being ignored, rather than just the lack of a guilds admin. You could also say this is false advertisement.

[NicoX]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

You can, they just get stuck in the "pending" list forever or until removed regardless of obtaining 10 members. I recall it being said this is a result of some technical error which is being ignored, rather than just the lack of a guilds admin. You could also say this is false advertisement.

Nobody is updating the lists anymore, you have to send a mail to the support to get ur guild activated, which is just dumb and time consuming. I guess GraalOnline needs a new Global Guild Admin. Whats wrong giving someone permission to activate pending guilds and update the lists?

Why unixmad/Stefan making this to a big deal hiring a new Global Staff. I dont understand it honestly...

[Crono]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

These are targeted towards hooking the interest of new Graal players. They may not be to your, older or more casual players liking, but are part of a strategy intended to bring players to the game. This means there would potentially be more players to spar/pk/participate within events, which is a good thing.

No, you assume that a forced storyline + questing structure is going to draw more players in than a server without forced storyline + questing structure. That can't logically make sense, as you even specifically stated that it may not be to the casual player's liking. Casual is where the large chunk of any given playerbase will be. Therefore it's not a "positive" point going to Classic vs Era as opposed to not mentioning it at all.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

Classic pre dates global guilds. Many of the best known global guilds were originally local guilds on Classic, restoring a system which prevents multi-guilding will resurrect some of the factors which made guilds great in the first place. Right now it's technically impossible to even create a new global guild, as well as transfer leadership or be disabled for inactivity. Global guild leaders will be able to create their guild locally, criteria permitting.

You could still multi-guild in the past with local guilds, anyway, so forcing people to only one guild isn't really a selling point. And no, it didn't make guilds great in the first place. What gave you that idea?

[ffcmike]

Originally Posted by Crono

No, you assume that a forced storyline + questing structure is going to draw more players in than a server without forced storyline + questing structure. That can't logically make sense, as you even specifically stated that it may not be to the casual player's liking. Casual is where the large chunk of any given playerbase will be. Therefore it's not a "positive" point going to Classic vs Era as opposed to not mentioning it at all.

When you consider that pretty much every Graal server provides little to no direction to new players, and that there hasn't been an established server with a significant storyline since 2004, ofcourse there's going to be a bias in favour of the casual elements compared to questing, because community is a reflection of the content at hand. Think back to 2000, a very large portion of players were Zelda fanatics, even after Graal was renamed from Zelda Online it stood out as a Zelda clone. A lot of players have even said they only found Graal in the first place by searching for an online version of Zelda.

I know very well that the game does boil down to community based content, and this is the gameplay players end up experiencing far more than anything else. For a first time Graal player who is entirely alien to the game however, it's a lot less inviting and more difficult to enjoy compared to designed purposeful content. Expecting new players to wander around aimlessly in order to familiarise themself with the game is very hit and miss, instilling the idea that there's at least something for a player to do and showing them how to get to it increases the probability of them staying online, without necessarily prohibiting their free will.

In Classic's case, the storyline is only forced on players to a very small extent, and does not put players at a disadvantage within competitive gameplay. On the subject of logic, this wouldn't be of any significant detriment to casual style players, there would only be benefit.

Originally Posted by Crono

You could still multi-guild in the past with local guilds

What about before the introduction of global guilds?
I'm not entirely sure to be honest, but it's the impression I'm under. It may well be that multi-guilding became a lot more difficult for guild owners to monitor after the introduction of global guilds. Now you can't even see a list of guilds a player is in like was possible in the past.

Originally Posted by Crono

so forcing people to only one guild isn't really a selling point

I didn't say it was the sole selling point, there's a lot of advantages a local system would provide, mainly full creative freedom and an in game control panel. I didn't say we would necessarily restrict players to one guild either, with a local guilds system we could implement different types of guild, limiting players to only one competitive guild, while allowing them to form families for example.

Originally Posted by Crono

And no, it didn't make guilds great in the first place. What gave you that idea?

I didn't say prohibiting multi-guilding was the sole reason for this. I was referring to a local guilds system in general. Every guild, plus the amount of guilds would be relevant to the server, which would have more legitimacy than an out dated, massively inflated, poorly maintained system.

[BlackSolider]

I don't want to get deeply involved into an internet back-and-forth (especially when it doesn't directly involve me,) but here are my thoughts on the recent subjects of a 'forced storyline/quests' and 'local guilds only':

Every game needs to give a new player some sort of background/direction when they start. Simply logging onto a server and knowing nothing about the fluff, locations, ways to make money or get items, etc. is a bad influence on newcomers. Thus a game/server should walk the person along for a short time, describing where they are, what is going on, and how to get started. People looking for a true story-based RPG should probably get another game, but giving people an idea of what is going on around them is generally a good idea.

The debate likely comes from how long a person should be handheld by the server (ie: being "forced" to do stuff) before being left to fend for themselves. Outside of getting the sword and the shield, nothing I found in the storyline (after having played through it recently) was impossible to do without. Having lvl 1 gloves or a warp ring was nice, but even the 4th heart is negated in events when everyone is given the same health (I believe 3.) So from what I've seen, after you follow the story to get the sword and shield (along with reading about some of Graal basics and classic's story,) you're free to either continue the story or go off on your own, and thus seems fine.

The issue about 'local guilds' vs 'global guilds', as well as 'multi-guilding' is probably more complex. Personally I like the idea of 'local guilds' that represent something significant on the server (a location, area, idea, or whatever,) but these aren't likely common. Most local guilds are probably friends joining forces to try and become the big shots of the server. I'd like to see both global and local guilds allowed (could also lead to some fun 'invasion' type events of guild battles) but ultimately it doesn't matter that much to me.

[Hiro]

Local guilds only is stupid and you should feel bad for thinking it's a good idea.

[Luda]

Originally Posted by Hiro

Local guilds only is stupid and you should feel bad for thinking it's a good idea.

yep

[Crono]

Originally Posted by ffcmike

When you consider that pretty much every Graal server provides little to no direction to new players, and that there hasn't been an established server with a significant storyline since 2004, ofcourse there's going to be a bias in favour of the casual elements compared to questing, because community is a reflection of the content at hand. Think back to 2000, a very large portion of players were Zelda fanatics, even after Graal was renamed from Zelda Online it stood out as a Zelda clone. A lot of players have even said they only found Graal in the first place by searching for an online version of Zelda.

I know very well that the game does boil down to community based content, and this is the gameplay players end up experiencing far more than anything else. For a first time Graal player who is entirely alien to the game however, it's a lot less inviting and more difficult to enjoy compared to designed purposeful content. Expecting new players to wander around aimlessly in order to familiarise themself with the game is very hit and miss, instilling the idea that there's at least something for a player to do and showing them how to get to it increases the probability of them staying online, without necessarily prohibiting their free will.

In Classic's case, the storyline is only forced on players to a very small extent, and does not put players at a disadvantage within competitive gameplay. On the subject of logic, this wouldn't be of any significant detriment to casual style players, there would only be benefit.

That's all fine and dandy except in the original post you specifically stated that it may not cater to the casual player, which makes all of this null and void. That's how logical arguments work my friend. I could go on about how a forced storyline goes against what a Graal player desires but that could constitute its own thread.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

What about before the introduction of global guilds?
I'm not entirely sure to be honest, but it's the impression I'm under. It may well be that multi-guilding became a lot more difficult for guild owners to monitor after the introduction of global guilds. Now you can't even see a list of guilds a player is in like was possible in the past.

You could still multi-guild, it was never an issue. An authoritive figure in a guild would PM an Admin or sometimes dedicated Guilds Admin on the server to edit the guild's .txt file to add a particular player and that's it. You also need to remember that families liked to have their own tags too, which could be confused with multi-guilding.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

I didn't say it was the sole selling point, there's a lot of advantages a local system would provide, mainly full creative freedom and an in game control panel. I didn't say we would necessarily restrict players to one guild either, with a local guilds system we could implement different types of guild, limiting players to only one competitive guild, while allowing them to form families for example.

You wouldn't have to disable global guilds for this. Zodiac, for example, still allows global guilds, contains local guilds, and had a "competitive" nation-based guild system going on all at the same time. I'm all for more player control over guilds, especially since global guilds are being handled in such a horrible fashion. p.s "I didn't say we would necessarily restrict players to one guild either" <- you implied that by stating no multi-guilding without elaborating in the previous posts.

Originally Posted by ffcmike

I didn't say prohibiting multi-guilding was the sole reason for this. I was referring to a local guilds system in general. Every guild, plus the amount of guilds would be relevant to the server, which would have more legitimacy than an out dated, massively inflated, poorly maintained system.

You implied local guilds + enforced anti-multi-guilding measures somehow made guilds greater in the past which is not true. Guilds always relied, and still do, on player loyalty. You can't enforce loyalty. It's something players decide for themselves. There are global guilds now that don't have multi-guilding members, and the past was no different.

[TheGodAngelo]

You forget that more people enjoy quests than those who don't.
You're certainly given the option of playing servers without them.
Classic has quests, many people enjoy them, you don't. go somewhere else then?
Classic will have local guilds, you don't like that. cool, not for everybody, there's quite a few other servers out there. have fun

But to bag on something simply because it's not your taste, It's like bagging on Valikorlia for not having guns if you're an Era fan.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by TheGodAngelo

You forget that more people enjoy quests than those who don't.
You're certainly given the option of playing servers without them.
Classic has quests, many people enjoy them, you don't. go somewhere else then?
Classic will have local guilds, you don't like that. cool, not for everybody, there's quite a few other servers out there. have fun

I don't know where you get that statistic from but after 12 years of Graal the vibe I get is that players dont really care for them.

Your logic of "go somewhere else then" is not an appropriate attitude, and I'm glad you have no authority over Classic because people like you have killed servers in the past.

Ex-Classic players have already stated their distate for forced local guilds. It's obvious Thor wants to cater to both true Classic players and new ones alike, so it's important that someone speaks out with reason on how he could improve the server he's been working on for over 3 years with criticism that could lead to positive changes to the server for all.

Originally Posted by TheGodAngelo

But to bag on something simply because it's not your taste, It's like bagging on Valikorlia for not having guns if you're an Era fan.

Are you implying that I'm bagging on Classic? That comparison isn't even valid anyway, so try again.