You make it seem like Ruins has a chance.

The circles make it look like a cute panda head, level ++. Someone hire this guy.

???

If you have a problem with me, you can Forum PM me.

You're the one who brought the subject out in public. If you can't take the heat, get off the forum.

Wow is this some big advertising stunt for my server?

I've never seen so many newbies argue in one thread. This was hilarious, THANK YOU.

I just had an orange it was sweet.

By the way we have a changed tile-set now.

Im eating one now. ^^

Server fail rate was every bit as high in '01 >_<

Not really. There were tons of servers back then. Not to mention there was no history of 10 years with no one coming out with a server prior, either.

99/100 isn't much better than 10/10

Why is everyone attempting to start up andor again? In my opinion it wasn't that great then and kinda sucked. I have yet to hear about any mind blowing plans that would make it hold a player base higher than 2, both being RC. Why not think of something original or something actual in depth gameplay which is what Graal is lacking.

Because these people are all special and guaranteed to succeed no matter how far they're out of their depth, because their server just will..........because it's their server.
All the other hundreds of people that have made failed pointless servers over the last 5 years were not special like they are.

... O.o what?

You said the failure rate is much higher now than it was in 2001. When Oladahn said that they're actually about the same, you brought up the fact that there were more servers back then.

I said 99/100 servers failing isn't much better than 10/10 servers failing. Larger amount and history have nothing to do with rate of failure.

People used to actually put effort into having a back story to their server. Many of them also got much further along than most of the current UC servers have.

That wasn't even my point. My point was back then, in 2001 there wasn't some long history of failed projects. Most projects were new, it was all a new environment. Graal had been around for a few years already but you hosted the servers yourself. Then P2P came around and people had to up their quality to get hosted. Regardless, the point is back then people could at least talk crap because they didn't know any better. Now it's been somewhat like 10 years and only one or two servers have actually made it(whether they pushed the envelope or not is another discussion). So really, given the track record of Graal as a whole everyone should just zip their mouth and if they need to prove something then do it by actually completing a server. Otherwise it's just tiring.

And 99/100 servers failing IS much better than 10/10. Why? Because there is actually a server making it.

I don't disagree.

I guess, but in terms of percentages, no. I was just commenting on the fact that 9/10 is the same as 90/100 and "more servers back then" doesn't mean that the rate of failure was any different.

I honestly can't see any server making it, regardless of quality/originality/support. Graal doesn't have the player-count to handle another player world. The only way your server might "make it" is if it ends up replacing one of the existing worlds...a lot of good that will do

For example? People also didn't have the high quality games that we have now for roughly the same price (or cheaper) back then. I don't think it's so much a lack of quality work or effort from developers, but the fact that there's less players to attract, and the few that remain have much higher expectations.

I disagree. Another server or a few more would make all the difference in the world, as long as the people running it feels like putting any amount of effort into attracting players. Once we finish up on Maloria, I plan on utilizing Google Ads and numerous other ad services to attract people to atleast try playing. I firmly believe that Graal as a whole is a hosting platform for games, aka servers, and thus the management should treat their servers as stand alone games.

I would agree if managers were able to profit from their server. Personally, I would never pay to advertise for something that is just going to end up making someone else money.

I would. I'm not putting down hundreds of hours working on something just to see it wither away without putting up a struggle for it. If I make something I want to see it become popular.

This has deviated so much from the original post...

By the way, I never did get to reply to this. If you have nothing nice to say Jerret, don't say anything at all. Didn't your parents tell you that? :noob:

No one cares, sorry regret.

I'm just saying. If he wants to troll he can do it on some other post. I made this to find new staff, not to be insulted by people who feel a need to attack other servers because they feel theirs is superior.

I think you're overthinking by a longshot, he doesn't do it for those reasons in any way. He just does it because he can no more or less to it.

Really took you awhile (16 Days) to respond to that one huh? I 'attacked' your idea because it was poorly thought-out and the fact that it's far from revolutionary not because I feel Zodiac is superior even though it is.

That seems fairly....cynical and depressing.

I never said it had to be revolutionary. Did I say, " THE NEWEST GREATEST THING IN GAMING EVER!!!!" ? No, I didn't. It isn't amazingly new, or incredibly fresh. But it's a style I think that a good amount of people, including me, might like. Isn't that all that matters?

wat.

Well technically, they are slightly revolutionary. Nobody has used the ideas before. But I didn't say it was the best thing in the world. I realize some people may hate the idea. The point is you don't have to vocalize it.

Uh yeah I do and there's nothing your care-bear attitude can do about it.

If you realize people may hate it, shouldn't you be made aware as to who might hate it?

+rep in a while.

If I cared to know then maybe. I don't think I ever asked though, did I?

Even if you didn't ask, you should care about people's opinion in order to pull off something eventualy successful.

There's a difference between a constructive insult and a regular insult. What he said was just a regular insult. If he'd said, "I think [Insert aspect of server here] could use improvement in [Insert form of improvement here]." Then that would have been useful.

You can't specify what kind of criticism you're going to receive. Every person is entitled to his own opinion. Why should your server be exempt from criticism?