graal 4.1?
 

Whats the difrence between Graal 4.0 and graal 4.1?
All vip's automaticly have 4.1, but i see no dif x.x

can some one clear this up?

Not really sure if it's a special release (Stefan was mentioning a new client today)... but if it's the same one - look at the memory usage. Stefan cleaned it up a lot.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one noticing this, but we've been on Graal 4.2 for quite a while now. (My packages screen says I'm using 4.206)

v4.1 has been released last July and also came with a new serverlist for VIP and gold. There will be a new interface which will replace both the old and new serverlist though.

I hope it will be green :D

I hope it will be a server. :-D

??

Expand?

lol, obviously you haven't seen Tyhms future improvement threads. :D

hubworld.

Yeah, I think that'd be a neat idea.

Hubworld could be fun the first two or three times you go there, but pretty soon it just becomes a server you have to go through to get to the server you really want to go to.

What they could do is introduce global items and have markets for you to trade them there and stores where you can buy things and such.

Anything to make Graal into more of a community and less of server vs server would be good.

Agreed. A hub would bring everyone together before they broke off to different parts of the Graal universe.

*shrugs* It bears development and discussion.
If you log off on Classic, do you default log on to Classic next time?
If you're in the middle of a Classic dungeon and want to run onto Kingdoms really fast, do you have to find a gate, or can you use a Warp Ring/Unstick/F7 back to Hubworld? If you take a shortcut out, does the shortcut take you back where you came from?

For a time Classic was the hubworld, and it was nice because (while a lot of people disagreed with how the LAT Admin and defacto manager handled things) there was a Default, there was a definitive Level 14. I think Graal needs that, we can't even talk on the current login server; unless you meet up with someone on the target server, you can't really play together-and since the playercount Is spread out among the dozen or two of servers, it's hard to Chance Upon someone. If Graal had a "lobby", there'd be a populated place for bored people to meet up and complain about how boring Graal's gotten until some newbie comes up and yells "OMG HALP NEED HALP TO BEAT HH1!", and then they can alternatively serverhop and lead him through it or PK him, as is traditional.

Disagree, half of the fun of graal right now is when those cherry newbs from UN come over and try to PK us on Npulse.

I like server vs server :(

Haha, i remember when they tryed to make that plan to try and takeover NP i guess meaning pk wise. Im not in their guild though, and i will never want too.

A hubworld would allow for a structured serverwar. Hubworld Forts could be programmed (I tinkered with it a bit) to recognize home-servers over guilds, and portals could be programmed to key to the forts...so NPulse taking over UN's portal could be a fairly serious loss. (not enough to utterly block newbies from trying UN, just enough to be an annoyance...)

I would give just about anything to have one of those wars where my hands got cramps from hitting the spacebar for so long. So much fun....

Your plan for hubworld seems to be this:

1. Make hubworld.
2. Make everybody use it even though they don't want to.
3. Try to invent reasons for them to use it even though they don't like it.

This is a general problem that seems to arise whenever a developer comes up with a "WHOAMG GENIUS" idea (to him) and then makes everybody use it because he thinks it will make them realize how "WHOAMG GENIUS" it is. The fact is, for the vast majority of players, hubworld would detract from the quality of their playing experience.

You seem to think you can relive or restore the experiences you had back then by restoring the old structure. This was tried with 2K1 and it failed horribly. If Graal had never moved past Classic, or had never moved past 2K1, it wouldn't still be like it was back in the heyday of Classic/2K1, it would just be dead.

"Make everybody use it even though they don't want to." <-- How do you know what everyone wants or doesn't want? Things like global trading and such would make it more of a central meeting point for all players of Graal and less of a login server. Don't speak for all Graalians, because you don't know how something like this would be accepted by everyone.

Just make it optional? I mean... the server list is a 'server' anyways, so I don't think managing whether a player wants to use it as a hubworld or server list would be too difficult.

Mm...i think a restucturing of current trial and gold/vip accounts should be changed as well. What I'd like:

Trials can access current classic worlds and save their stats. However, certain content/areas should be off-limits to them. For instance, on Zodiac, trials should be capped at level 20 and restricted from certain areas (like dungeons). On Classic, trials shouldn't be able to recieve certain items and their money/bank money will be capped at a certain amount. It lets trials play but they will still want to get vip/gold. Trials still won't be able to access hosted worlds or gold worlds. In order to make up any money loss, trials PM windows should have like two ads in it. Vip/gold won't have these ads.

You could further extend vip/gold differences on servers. Vip's could maybe test new weapons/events/contents before released to the rest of the server. Gold accounts may have a higher bank interest rate etc.

Im pushing for something like this and am working really hard on getting it to happen.

Perhaps instead just have it where trials can only play a certain amount of hours per day, but their stats still save.

I do not want this. Therefore everyone does not want this.

Or get rid of trial accounts completely and come up with something different so people like Fogles can't generate 5000 trials to hack on?

There's no way you're going to eliminate that problem, so getting rid of trials just because of it is a bad move.

I wasn't being serious. Getting rid of trial accounts take away the chance for new players to 'try it before they buy it'. But, it needs to be made harder to create new trial accounts or something, because it's ridiculous how the hackers can make that many trial accounts without much work.

I think the only way they would be able to is to check IPs, and we all know that isn't going to help much.
I mean... he could perhaps make signing up via the client, then he could somehow work around the computer ID I guess the same way they check bans. But I don't really know how that stuff works.

*gasps*

Hmm, mines has been 4.208 for a while.

Ditto.

I do not "know" what everyone wants or doesn't want. I think we can safely infer, however, that the average player does not want to go through another server just to get to the server he really wants to play.

...am I allowed to agree?

The Average Player should start on their common server. Log off on Classic, log back on - hey, you're on Classic again. Oh, you wanna go to Zodiac instead? Go through Hubworld. Wanna skip Hubworld and warp directly to Zodiac?
*shrugs* This is the debatable part. I get saddled a lot with saying "No, you have to go through Zodiac, there can be no F7 Server List!" I just want to discuss the possibility. You say a lot of players like to hop from one server to another as quickly as possible, and it would greatly inconvenience them to have to go through anything more complex than our current F7 Server. I say without a common ground there's no sense in Global Games, Global Currency, Etc; and without an enforced "hallway" there's no common ground. But that's me.

Am I wrong? Or is your argument that Global Currency isn't worth the inconvenience?

The thing you have to understand about global games is that whether you put them in a hubworld or not, they're still in a position of direct competition with the servers. Whether the player is forced to walk past the games in order to get to the server he wants to play is irrelevant. Choosing to play a game means he is choosing not to play a server.

You seem to think that people really want to play global games but can't because there's nobody else to play with. This isn't true. Zone is, in a sense, a sort of "global game" because anybody can play it. It requires a large number of people to be fun far more than the other global games do as well. You can have a good game of Bombermad with four people. Zone with four people is no fun at all (and it does fall to such low numbers daily). Zone is successful as a "global game" because it's able to compete with actual servers. Something that the real global games can't do.

Global currency can be a source of revenue to Graal (I assume you're talking about the kind of global currency where people buy it for real money and then convert it to the currency of other servers.) A "hubworld" doesn't help this though. Whether players have to go through a hubworld or not doesn't matter. Either way, global currency is just a tool to get the things the players really want on the server they really want to be playing.

You could argue that hubworld gives an added incentive as Graal can offer things that can be purchased using global currency for use on hubworld, but that assumes that hubworld would have people who truly "play" it, which would require it to be a true server capable of competing with the other servers. Doing so would require you to turn hubworld into a server with a vast map, complex economy, possibly quests, kingdoms/guilds, etc. It would have to cease to be the hubworld you describe and become more like a 2K2 that advertises itself to the rest of Graal by forcing players to go through it to get to the servers they want to play.

Well argued, particularly the Hubworld=G2K7 point. I suppose the great hope will have to remain independant advertising (Graal as a Hosting Service over Graal as a community of worlds (despite that these worlds hate and try to destroy each other to cannibalize the others' playerbase)), and the Global Games are destined to failure. By extension the global economy's a joke, as why would anyone care about money that only matters in the global games that only detract from [insert playerworld here]'s playercount? Zone and Bombermad are natural enemies competing for the rare resource that is Players, thus it is in Zone's best interest to see that Global Gralats fall flat.

Maybe in a world where Zone has a strong enough playerbase that it need not fear losing 4 players to Bombermad...or in a world where the community is generous enough that a multi-server scavenger hunt doesn't devolve into petty attempts to steal each others' players in a server-spanning secret game of Hungry Hungry Hippos...

Zone doesn't "fear" losing games to Bombermad. It can't fear anything - it's a server. Of course, the developers may fear that their server will lose players to another server or to global games (though in the case of Zone only Stefan does much development), but even if they didn't, the servers wouldn't be in competition with each other any less. The average player doesn't play Zone rather than Bombermad because Zone (or its developer(s)) is "afraid" of losing him to Bombermad, he simply finds Zone to be better than Bombermad (and, really, it would be hard to argue that he's wrong. Bombermad gets old after a short while. Even if there was an "unlimited" number of people to play Bombermad with, the idea of clocking even 50 hours playing it is unimaginable.)

Why argue it? Just make it optional...
Though I do fear having a large portion of Graal's players all in one hubworld(which I assume is going to be relatively small, why make players travel far just to get to another server) will lag terribly.

See, I like the idea of the hubworld having all the gates in the middle, and stuff to do at the edges. Maybe have a game-annex in the absolute center, equidistant from every gate. On the plus side, that makes Graal one big game, with every PW another planet; on the downside, these planets are still competing for a limited number of players. Thus I agree it is an idea whose time has not yet come; we need a steady inflow before anyone will consent to letting a single server steal every other servers' loosely-attached players.