So managers aren't supposed to take input from players, and yet you're trying to tell them to turn classic into a quest-driven server? Something doesn't quite add up.

Besides, if they don't listen to the players, will the players ever be happy or feel important? The basic theory of a democracy is that the people are happier because their voice is heard, even if it is the minority party or viewpoint. Now obviously classic is far from a democracy, but unless the people feel a part of the community, they don't have any stake in it, and thus don't feel compelled to stay.

a certain server called graal the adventure was "popular" because of the quests its had. if classic cant have that , then put it in the bin.

Why, it would be so awesome.

It's so damn "classic" compared to those convertibles UN/Era people drive.

Actually gladius, I am just saying the wise choice to make would be to create the quests. They don't have to listen to me. Its their choice.

Indeed it is.

If you ask me Managers shouldnt really be ASKING for player opinion, they should have their own idea of how to work things and their own plan, and if some player goes "hey it'd be cool if" the manager would listen and consider what the player suggested.

Dev is a non paid work force. Your superiors really shouldn't order you around in that case. Getting paid is on a whole other level.

Also Manager's should make their decisions BASED on player opinion.

Fixed :D

The people in power have to do what is best for the server. Obviously that is opinionated, but it should be easier to figure out if you get enough thoughts together and decide on something that will make the majority happy. After all, if the people aren't happy, then they aren't having fun and thus they don't have a reason to stay.

Mystic you obviously did not read what I said.

Paid or not paid, a manager is a manager, if he is not, then why the hell are we calling the dream team of thor and storm managers?

They are called managers because they manage the staff divisions and the server, i'll say it again, they should create the structure and basis, and its up to them to get that design down, get it going with the Dev admin, and then its Dev admins job to make sure the development team is working on time and meeting dead lines.

Sadly, for some reason, we are all against dead lines, people cry and moan when given them, even though they chose to sign up for the job. So i feel that is also a good reason we will never ever see anything good out of classic, ever, ever again.

And no, I do not care about their lives, I do not care what other lame crap they do or have to do, i do not care about their school either. If they signed up for the job, they should be prepared to do whatever it is they gotta do. If there was a good structure and design and plans for classic from the managers and dev admin, then it wouldn't be such a problem to give deadlines and have them met. And yes i do understand that its hard to replace people, but them tough ****, doesn't mean they don't have to work, if that's the case you are better off closing classic.

Yes, they agreed to the job. Yes, they should be prepared to work on stuff they might not be thrilled with. Yes, we need a better structure and plans.

But lets be honest here. What motivation do dev people have to do their job? No pay. No thanks. *****y bosses. *****y players. Here, I'll give an example: Manager: "Hey, I think this is what classic needs, so spend your free time working on it and have it done by saturday, no excuses." Really? If the dev person doesn't like the idea, or has stuff to do irl, what is motivating them to actually spend their free time doing it? Maybe the dev person likes castles, and you're asking them to make a cave. Not gonna work.

Yes tats, they signed up for the job and should be expected to get the work done in a timely manner. But really, what motivates these people to spend their free time working on graal stuff? They get nothing out of it (other than the satisfaction of their work being released and enjoyed by the public, but of course this only happens if they want to work on that project,) except another job assignment. What motivates a GC to host in their free time? When events are fun to watch or host, thats what. When players are *****ing the entire time or you're hosting a lame event, you really don't have that much motivation. So what motivates dev people? Do they find staring at the graal editor to be fun? Do they find spending hours typing g-script lines fun? I can't imagine it is for most people.

Point is, people are motivated to work when its fun, or at least if they get paid. Should they have signed up for the job if they weren't gonna stick it out through the tough times? Perhaps not. But you can't expect people to work hard when they get absolutely nothing out of it, whether they have some responsibility or not.

Gah, there I go rambling again.

So ok no motivation to work, nothing gets produced. So lets just give players powers and let them go do whatever and hope that they make stuff we can use.

Great. Thanks for making it clear glad.

your testimony proofs how people have changed during the years, where in graals early days people would love to make content, nowadays no one is motivated. Could it be the greed of mankind?

I am yet to see a justification for using quest prizes in the lottery. I'll assume it is just laziness and a lack of creativity then after all.

Try having fun with the misanthropic administration.

@ the flying Dutchman

Perhaps it could be greed. Perhaps anyone who truly had fun on graal, or at least making stuff for it, has moved on to bigger, nerdier things.

@ Rufus

Had to look up misanthropic. So we're going to point to [Synonyms:
1. antisocial, unfriendly, morose, surly.] bosses as the problem why people aren't motivated to work? Or am I misinterpreting your statement?

@ Tats

Real life example: how many people hate their jobs but keep doing it because they need the money? How many people actually get up early and look forward to work? We need to find a way to encourage the later and thus get rid of the former. Instead of saying "oh damn, I have that stupid cave quest to do," we want our devers to say "oh damn, this quest of mine is totally gonna rock because it was fun to make and thus I put a lot of effort into it." How do we do that exactly? Well you're asking the wrong person, but we have to find a way to motivate our dev team.

Actually i love my job, and i would do it without pay.

And you know what, you gave me a great thought, think of video game developers, anyone who works with video games...they love their ****ing job, love it.

I know a guy who worked for konami, he said all he did was test games and he loved it.

They would do it without pay.

And you know what, Bosses should motivate their workers, they are there to motivate. So it is really partly their fault if their staff isn't motivated to work.

Please introduce me to this guy. I want his job.

Well he did test games people were paid to make.

That sort of proves my point tats. If people love their job, they're more than willing to do it (with or without pay sometimes.) If people don't love their jobs, most of the time payment is the only thing keeping them at that job.

Apparently some of our dev team doesn't love deving as much as your example loved testing video games. Can't blame em.

Even video game developers love their jobs. IF THEY ARE GOOD AT IT.

If they hate it, then they shouldn't have that power that they have, why have it if they aren't going to develop? If they were good at it and it came easy to them, they would most likely love their job.

So you are still missing the point gladius, doesn't matter what kind of job, but im just using video game developers because duh, that's what our development team should be doing. Developing this video game.

And midi, you can become a video game tester for any company, just look for one.

A person might be good at math, but they sure as hell might not like spending hour after hour working on math problems. Not saying that they couldn't like it, but certainly they don't have to.

If you like math, you are most likely a math teacher, or doing something that involves doing math, therefore you are doing math for hours and hours anyway.


I don't want to have to keep saying this, but it seems people are really really dense in the head.

They chose to be development, so they should put in the effort and work.

It doesn't get much clearer than that. Stop with the bull**** excuses, stop with the petty *****ing about me demoralizing them, i do it for fun because they have trashed classic and its not been fun really since tyhm.

Put out something good, start being smart about it, start thinking pro actively about what will happen once this certain content is released.

Then ill shut my big mouth and quit being an *******, until then, you all can also stop being so stupid and open your goddamn eyes.

Oh and btw, I just did the lottery for the first time. What a ****ing joke, good job screwing another thing up.

When you play lotto, you never, NEVER get numbers that are consecutive. Decreases your chances right away. Besides, if people are dumb and decide to spend all their tickets on it, then eventually the lottery will flop as well because GC does not host.

GC does not host with playercounts less than 10, which is what we usually have now adays.

Lies each number is a new drawing which is a separate event from the others...

1-2-3 is just as likely as 12-42-19

I deal with random numbers alot and I approve of the above post.

Too many cooks spoil the meal. You want to take a single idea, create it, then evolve it with beneficial ideas.

Knowing how to make something good and just making it is alot better then going by player opinion.

But isn't the definition of "good" an opinion? A new overworld was a "good" thing to Hell raven, and we all know how successful that project was.

Obviously the person in charge has some creative ideas in their head, but their vision of classic might not be "good" to some players, and thus they will be unhappy. When a cook makes a meal (talking about having people over for dinner,) they try to make something that everyone will be pleased with, whether it is "good" to them or not. If they make a super-duper salmon dinner or something, it might be good to them, but if the people don't like salmon it doesn't matter how good it is, the people won't be happy.

The problem isn't that there is a new overworld, it's that the overworld is not being taken an advantage of. A bigger overworld is fine, as long as you know what you're doing with it. Hell Raven apparently built a stepping stone for us that no one wants to build upon, he probably could've did more with it himself if he kept deving on Classic.

Obviously Clel doesn't get that decisions should be made based on player opinion. You find a medium with player input and then go on and choose an idea from there. This game was originally "for the players, by the players", but if two people are going to decide the fate of a server, that isn't really by the players.

I mean, why wouldn't managers decide based on player opinion? Gladius made a point with Hell Raven's idea.

Clel I wasn't talking about the overworld. I was talking about the overworld project as a whole. Hell raven thought it was a "good" idea. What did the public think about it at the time? I don't recall, but the point is, if the management doesn't ask the players opinions, then whatever projects they do attempt, it will look good to them, but perhaps not the players. When it doesn't look good to the players, they won't use it.

Say a manager decides to design a new town without asking players. To the manager, it could be the greatest idea in the world. To the players, who weren't asked what they'd like, it could be the biggest waste of time in the world. Perhaps they'll like the idea. But odds are, if a manager constantly decides which projects to do without asking the players what they want, that some projects aren't going to be "good" to a bunch of the players.

But the overworld project as a whole could rock if devs would take an advantage of it...

Indeed it could. But is that what the people really want to see? Do they want a new overworld? Or do they want stuff to do on the overworld?

If the devs don't have the player's opinions, they're making their dream world, not the world the community wants to play. And if the community doesn't want to play in that dream world, they're going to leave.

You say GCs never host with low playercount.

Thats why you all suck as GCs =P

You should never host when there is 1 player on, because hey what will you host? 2 active players though = good 2 player game.

And again, Development aren't little girls who can't cross the street, they do not need us to hold their hands and continue to give them suggestions, they aren't taking them anyway.

Its their job to provide a fun exciting server, they have failed miserably in doing so, let them keep trying, I rather watch them all crumble and watch DC fail miserably for being such a ****y prick. I'm surprised you all have not noticed yet that DC never cared about **** that any of you had to say, hes going to do what every other admin did and try to mold this to his own liking, not any of his teams liking, not thor or storms liking, but his own.

But again, they got nothing on Delteria if they keep going at this rate. I'm done with classic for now, they showed they cant handle running it anymore, im waiting for delteria to come out.

Result.

No sorry I forgot you were retarded and have trouble understanding what people say.

I meant my hope for classic is done, i am still going to talk about anything i want to about it. Sorry, i always forget you are insanely stupid Rufus.

2 people = a couple
3 people = a threesome
4 people = a boring event (imo) like sparopoly or drunken stupor, neither of which I enjoy hosting
5 people = a boring event like first to 5 sumo
6 people = a decent LMS
7 people or more = a quality event

That's a rough generalization. Yesterday I tried hosting with a playercount of 13. I saw about 6-7 people online who would probably join an event. I massed asking how many people would be interested in an event, and after a minute I had 3 pms. That's not an event. If I had gotten 4-5 people (or more,) I'd gladly (pun intended) try to host something. But I didn't. What the hell do you want me to do? Host a tea party for 3 people? Please. I aim to host fun, quality events. Quality and fun are both amplified by competition, and for the best competition, you need numbers greater than 6. Does that mean I can't host events with less than 6? No, but anything less than 4 is not an event in my eyes.

Not everybody who will play will automatically pm you saying they're interested...

So we're supposed to assume we're going to get more people? "Oh, only 3 ppl sent in, but I'm sure I can get 6 people." Will it sometimes happen? Sure. Will it happen all the time? Nope.

Is that a good enough reason to detag? Nope. I would definitely host with 3 people though.

It's a good enough reason for me, according to my definition of what a quality event should be.

If your definition of a quality event includes 3 person events, then have fun with that.

This is ultimately why the GC team fails. We have GC's who are too pessimistic to even host on a semi-decent playercount and have to resort to "getting a valid amount of PMs" in order to host. Granted if you only had 1 pm that wouldn't be a good sign, but 3 or more is.

Fail Fail Fail