The Real Cost of Catshopping
Comments
-
Euphy - Dreamweaver wrote: »I think earning a degree is the same as actually doing something. Also, I want to save the world, but I'll be damned if I'm going to miss "The Hills."
fixed it for ya.0 -
hajnalnereyn wrote: »I'm sorry that I don't have time to read all of the posts in this thread concerning the issue, so I don't know if my input has been for mentioned.
I used to play multiple games on private servers for quite some time (don't hate, it was only because of my love for the game and lack of money to play on officials, but I did when I could
), and on a few of them I found that people had written script that allowed the client to be closed and the account still running, but only while in shop mode(probably for obvious botting reasons). To be honest I always thought this was one of the most amazing things for games that allowed for player shops to be created.
Now I don't know how difficult that would be to implement into the game, but perhaps adding the button to the Consignment Shop window itself? Instead of clicking 'Done', click a similar button to close out the client, or even put the button on the window once the shop has already been started. Just a suggestion
Hello ^^,
What the original poster was trying to suggest that ultimately it might be good for users to turn off their machines and not use that electricity and such. While your method is clever and it frees available resources on that persons computer allowing them to open other programs with minimal system impact, Their machine is still turned on. Also the bandwidth to keep the connection alive is still being used. I think it's good for players who want to sell with minimal performance impact on their system but I'm not sure it helps resolve the particular problem 
Regards0 -
This topic...has brought so many laughs.
It's a game, seems a lot of people are forgetting that.
And like I said before, this is just one small game...there's 80 others doing the same thing, and it's not going to change unless you want to hunt them down or something.0 -
lol, Hakii, it stopped being about the game a while ago, but it's keeping me busy during WQ, so I'm satisfied.0
-
Yeah, but other people don't seem realize it, and continue discussing 'the game'..._azazel_ - Lost City wrote: »lol, Hakii, it stopped being about the game a while ago, but it's keeping me busy during WQ, so I'm satisfied.
Boredom is a dangerous thing.
Actually...b:shocked0 -
Euphy - Dreamweaver wrote: »Do you honestly want me to get started on this topic? I take kickboxing classes for a reason, and its to pummel ******* like that so-called scientist if I ever see him.
The data is out there, and it has been reproduced many times. It is beyond a doubt that the trends of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing temperatures correlate. If you want I can post slides from my Environmental Studies: A Changing World seminar.
Yes we all know that in the mid-1900s there was a cooling trend, however it is also evident that this was independent of the increasing CO2 levels and due to other factors. No one is saying the Earth's global is so simple as that the only factor is carbon dioxide in the atmoshere. In fact the other two main factors besides all greenhouse gases are solar activity and albedo.
@Foltern:
so true! And yes while there are other greenhouse gases (notably Methane, Water Vapor) Carbon Dioxide is one which we influence directly. Increasing water vapor in the atmosphere is a postive feedback from rising CO2 levels, and methane is unfortunatly something we can't really reduce. I don't want to force people to become vegatarians; its futile. But its true... cow farts kill the earth...
Perhaps you will then explain why during the ice age's, atmospheric c02 was much higher than it is now? Oh sorry I forgot, that is an inconvenient truth AGW proponents strive hard to hide and bury. There is also this little tidbit for you to think about...
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
andddddd....
We are actually in an ice age climate today. However for the last 10,000 years or so we have enjoyed a warm but temporary interglacial vacation. We know from geological records like ocean sediments and ice cores from permanent glaciers that for at least the last 750,000 years interglacial periods happen at 100,000 year intervals, lasting about 15,000 to 20,000 years before returning to an icehouse climate. We are currently about 18,000 years into Earth's present interglacial cycle. These cycles have been occurring for at least the last 2-4 million years, although the Earth has been cooling gradually for the last 30 million years.
Today the Earth warms up and cools down in 100,000- year cycles. Geologic history reveals similar cycles were operative during the Carboniferous Period. Warming episodes caused by the periodic favorable coincidence of solar maximums and the cyclic variations of Earth's orbit around the sun are responsible for our warm but temporary interglacial vacation from the Pleistocene Ice Age, a cold period in Earth's recent past which began about 2 million years ago and ended (at least temporarily) about 10,000 years ago. And just as our current world has warmed, and our atmosphere has increased in moisture and CO2 since the glaciers began retreating 18,000 years ago, so the Carboniferous Ice Age witnessed brief periods of warming and CO2-enrichment.
Following the Carboniferous Period, the Permian Period and Triassic Period witnessed predominantly desert-like conditions, accompanied by one or more major periods of species extinctions. CO2 levels began to rise during this time because there was less erosion of the land and therefore reduced opportunity for chemical reaction of CO2 with freshly exposed minerals. Also, there was significantly less plant life growing in the proper swamplands to sequester CO2 through photosynthesis and rapid burial.
It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but has since declined. Today, at 380 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.
What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to currently. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.
~S0 -
Saitada, stop getting facts all over his/her precious pseudo-religion! b:pleased0
-
_azazel_ - Lost City wrote: »Saitada, stop getting facts all over his/her precious pseudo-religion! b:pleased
I know. They don't like inconvenient truths like actual climactic history as shown in the geological record. It doesn't suit their political agenda of world domination and control.
~S0 -
Saitada - Sanctuary wrote: »Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
Your probably right. I'm not qualified to have a conversation about this stuff because I have little knowledge of it. ^^
What I can say is that you recognize carbon is one influence or contributing factor even if it may be small.
If I understood what I read in post 1, the original poster is simply suggesting that perhaps we can all do a small part to help control that. It can be as simple as shutting down your machine which in my opinion only is a small and reasonable admonition which many people can accommodate ^__^
In my own opinion, a user doesn't even have to do that every night, doing it less is doing something which is always better than nothing at all.
Regards.0 -
Foltern - Sanctuary wrote: »Your probably right. I'm not qualified to have a conversation about this stuff because I have little knowledge of it. ^^
What I can say is that you recognize carbon is one influence or contributing factor even if it may be small.
If I understood what I read in post 1, the original poster is simply suggesting that perhaps we can all do a small part to help control that. It can be as simple as shutting down your machine which in my opinion only is small and reasonable admonition which many people can accommodate ^__^
In my own opinion, a user doesn't even have to do that every night, doing it less is doing something which is always better than nothing at all.
Regards.
Don't get me wrong. I am for protecting our environment. We really don't need to poison it with our wastes like we do. But at the same time I also expect people to know what they are talking about before they open their mouths or at least have the good grace to admit they might be in error when presented with data that directly contradicts what they have been led to believe and start thinking for themselves.
I was originally a very strong, vocal proponent and supporter for AGW until I started doing some digging on Earths historical climate. I found to my dismay and embarrassment that what I was told was a blatant lie and began to see that the real agenda here isn't 'saving the planet' the real agenda was control and domination through fear mongering.
Hard facts like what I listed are swept under the rug and ignored/hidden while doctored data is thrown up as truth and worshipped as perfect and without any chance of being a total fabrication and lie and anyone who dares to contradict it with facts, is shut down, scorned, ridiculed and dismissed. Losing their jobs, homes, and in some cases lives, for speaking the REAL truth, in the face of the politically motivated 'scientific consensus'.
~Saitada0 -
I must applaude the original poster's intent, conserving energy. Regardless of your stand on resource depletion, climate change, etc etc, using less will always leave more. Unfortunately while the math is logical the assumptions are not and undermine the intent. Are all the cat shops owners afk? If they had no cat shop would their computer be off? What are they doing instead of a cat shop and how much energy does that action consume? Changing ones behaviour to reduce their carbon footprint is a good thing, as long as you are certain the change in behaviour does indeed reduce your footprint.0
-
I leave my computer on with no catshop up and just stand around and camp AH for the next person to outbid me so I can bid again. b:chuckle0
-
Saitada - Sanctuary wrote: »Hard facts like what I listed are swept under the rug and ignored/hidden while doctored data is thrown up as truth and worshipped as perfect and without any chance of being a total fabrication and lie and anyone who dares to contradict it with facts, is shut down, scorned, ridiculed and dismissed. Losing their jobs, homes, and in some cases lives, for speaking the REAL truth, in the face of the politically motivated 'scientific consensus'.~Saitada
You could very well be right. I remember reading about the scientists who started the trend and such and about carbon and global cooling rather than warming. I can't validate either claim because I am not a scientist in the field researching it~ so I can't say whether what I see or hear in the news or read in the newspaper is true or not.
There seems to be "Republican facts" and "Democrat facts" who has the fact facts? I suppose a modern major component of science is what the most widely believed rhetoric suppository propelled into the eyes and ears of the public in the form of political and corporate sponsored newspapers and Tv- shows too ^.^
Regards.0 -
Foltern - Sanctuary wrote: »You could very well be right. I remember reading about the scientists who started the trend and such and about carbon and global cooling rather than warming. I can't validate either claim because I am not a scientist in the field researching it~ so I can't say whether what I read in the news or the newspaper is true or not.
There seems to be "Republican facts" and "Democrat facts" who has the fact facts? I suppose a modern major component of science is what the most widely believed rhetoric suppository propelled into the eyes and ears of the public in the form of political and corporate sponsored newspapers and Tv- shows too ^.^
Regards.
Over the years I have come to realize that almost any time politicians start jumping on a bandwagon, there is a motivation behind it that ultimately leads to fewer freedoms for us and more control by the powers that be.
As I said, I was originally a vocal proponent for AGW and for a few years believed blithely what I was fed because it sounded good and the data seemed good and fit my personal belief that we are destroying our environment and that we needed to stop doing it. Then I started doing my own digging and found things like all the planets in our solar system had been warming as well, and then got to looking at the earths geological history and climate. At that point I realized I had been duped and had believed what I was told like a bleating sheep.
It made me pretty angry with myself.
~S0 -
Saitada - Sanctuary wrote: »Over the years I have come to realize that almost any time politicians start jumping on a bandwagon, there is a motivation behind it that ultimately leads to fewer freedoms for us and more control by the powers that be.
As I said, I was originally a vocal proponent for AGW and for a few years believed blithely what I was fed because it sounded good and the data seemed good and fit my personal belief that we are destroying our environment and that we needed to stop doing it. Then I started doing my own digging and found things like all the planets in our solar system had been warming as well, and then got to looking at the earths geological history and climate. At that point I realized I had been duped and had believed what I was told like a bleating sheep.
It made me pretty angry with myself.
~S
Interesting. At first you seemed to embrace what was "fed" to you because it fit your personal belief. How can you be sure what you now believe is fact too?
I personally like the idea of taking steps to reduce the number of catshops. My reasons for supporting that revolve around graphical lag, network lag on behalf of PWI and it saves me on my own electric bill, like everyone else I can only choose what facts to embrace about the environment or other science.
What I know is that in some way not using so many catshops is better for energy consumption and does ultimately reduce my own ecological footprint. Those are good enough for me ^o^. Cheers
Regards.0 -
Actually, your anecdote is a great example of why we shouldn't get unnecessarily alarmed about this. Your aunt got a headache and died from complications associated with it. Had she gone to the hospital, she may have lived.Foltern - Sanctuary wrote: »One day my aunt, wife and mother of two children complained of a headache. She took medicine and it persisted. 6 hours later she was dead. So to this I say just because something is a small problem doesn't portend it should be ignored. Many times small problems which go ignored or unattended mature into substantial ones. I feel that simply because a problem is or seems small at this time is not an acceptable reason to disregard it.
Every day, hundreds of millions of people get headaches but recover with no ill side effects. If we followed your reasoning, all of them should go to the hospital. Hundreds of millions of people going to the hospital every day for simple headaches. Does that make any sense?
The case of your aunt was tragic, and you have my condolences. But it's hardly representative. When you do risk assessment, you have to make a decision based on the average outcome of a situation, not the worst-case outcome. If those hundreds of millions of headache-afflicted people went to see doctors, they would be told to take two aspirin and check back if the headache persists. No doctor would immediately run them through the gamut of tests which would have revealed your aunt's problem simply because she went to see the doctor for a headache.
They correlate, but the temperature swings lead the CO2 levels. (Look closely at the graph that's frequently used - the time axis is reversed to make it look like CO2 levels led the temperature changes (it was reversed in An Inconvenient Truth). It's as if the temperature changes cause the change in CO2 levels, not the other way around. To date, I have only seen one person (a climate scientist) give a good explanation for why this is (an explanation I happen to agree with btw).Euphy - Dreamweaver wrote: »The data is out there, and it has been reproduced many times. It is beyond a doubt that the trends of increased CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing temperatures correlate.
The vast majority of people who are convinced of AGW aren't able to explain this. If you're one of those people, I suggest you think carefully about whether you believe in it because you understand it, or whether you believe in it because it's the popular thing to do right now.
I'm pretty sure most of the lag comes from your computer having to load all the complex character and mount models and textures when you go into a crowded area, especially since a lot of it (armor, fashion, faces) is customized. A cat shop is relatively simple in terms of polygons, and the textures are just a small portion of your video card's memory. If you've ever been to a large GM event, you know those lag just as badly if not worse than W. Archo, and there are no cat shops there.Foltern - Sanctuary wrote: »I personally like the idea of taking steps to reduce the number of catshops. My reasons for supporting that revolve around graphical lag, network lag on behalf of PWI and it saves me on my own electric bill, like everyone else I can only choose what facts to embrace about the environment or other science.0 -
Solandri - Heavens Tear wrote: »Actually, your anecdote is a great example of why we shouldn't get unnecessarily alarmed about this. Your aunt got a headache and died from complications associated with it. Had she gone to the hospital, she may have lived.
Every day, hundreds of millions of people get headaches but recover with no ill side effects. If we followed your reasoning, all of them should go to the hospital. Hundreds of millions of people going to the hospital every day for simple headaches. Does that make any sense?
The case of your aunt was tragic, and you have my condolences. But it's hardly representative. When you do risk assessment, you have to make a decision based on the average outcome of a situation, not the worst-case outcome. If those hundreds of millions of headache-afflicted people went to see doctors, they would be told to take two aspirin and check back if the headache persists. No doctor would immediately run them through the gamut of tests which would have revealed your aunt's problem simply because she went to see the doctor for a headache.
Hi ^__^
This is what I said and this was my point:
"Just because something is a small problem doesn't portend it should be ignored. Many times small problems which go ignored or unattended mature into substantial ones. I feel that simply because a problem is or seems small at this time is not an acceptable reason to disregard it."
I feel the death of my family member is irrelevant and those statements can be replaced with an , <Insert scenario that gets worse when ignored>.
I feel that what I said can be applied to many different things. I am not qualified to give out medical advice nor am I trying to do that. :O
Regards0 -
Foltern - Sanctuary wrote: »Interesting. At first you seemed to embrace what was "fed" to you because it fit your personal belief. How can you be sure what you now believe is fact too?
Short of doing the actual physical research myself, I can only reason from the information I have gathered.
Unfortunately for the AGW crowd though, the information I gathered (like the geological data about earths long term climate and c02 history) existed and had been produced and verified repeatedly before AGW and climate worries became a political issue and the new boogieman and watchword.
If they could, the AGW crowd would eliminate that information so nobody would be able to point out that Earth was both colder and at the same time had more c02 in the atmosphere than we have at present, in the past. They would also love to hide the small fact that earths atmospheric c02 levels are historically lower than normal (i.e. we are in a 'low' c02 level period) over the long cold dark night of the planets life span.
~Saitada0 -
this is the thread that never dies
yes it goes on and hurts my eyes
some people
started posting here not knowing wtf?
and if you want intelligence then your sht out of luck
this is the thread that never dies.......
b:laugh hold your applause, I'm just here for the free drinks.b:laugh
edit- this isn't necessarily directed at anybody, just popped into my head, and I thought it was kinda funny.0 -
Saitada - Sanctuary wrote: »Short of doing the actual physical research myself, I can only reason from the information I have gathered.
Unfortunately for the AGW crowd though, the information I gathered (like the geological data about earths long term climate and c02 history) existed and had been produced and verified repeatedly before AGW and climate worries became a political issue and the new boogieman and watchword.
If they could, the AGW crowd would eliminate that information so nobody would be able to point out that Earth was both colder and at the same time had more c02 in the atmosphere than we have at present, in the past. They would also love to hide the small fact that earths atmospheric c02 levels are historically lower than normal (i.e. we are in a 'low' c02 level period) over the long cold dark night of the planets life span.
~Saitada
I remember hearing about that specifically. That information be it true or fabricated has great chance to alter a persons belief system, if it could be altered it probably would and be presented as fact
Regards0 -
Foltern - Sanctuary wrote: »I remember hearing about that specifically. That information be it true or fabricated has great chance to alter a persons belief system, if it could be altered it probably would and be presented as fact
Regards
True. The hard part comes in deciding what to believe. The fact that this geological data can be researched again today with today's more accurate measuring equipment and produce nearly identical results with only minor clarifying (i.e. specific c02 levels being changed by relatively minuscule amounts such as 4435ppm -vs- 4480ppm) etc. lends me to believe that their data is more worthy of being believed, than the data produced by the AGW crowd which has been shown to be historically inaccurate and worthless over the long term.
~S
*edit* I am enjoying this conversation with you. Thanks for a good afternoon :-)0 -
Guys the title of this thread is about the cost of cat shops, about how catshops are wasteful and should be replaced / obsoleted.
I don't get why you're talking about AWG or global warming whatever.
I know when I first found my way to Arch and saw the sea of catshops I thought to myself "WTF!". Now that I'm 101 and go to arch and see the nearly 400 catshops I think to myself "wtf -__-". You can't help but look at that pile of waste and think there has to be a better alternative.
Across the 5 servers there are around 2000 pcs running catshops. That's basically a distributed datacenter and all datacenters I've been in have basic costs such as power consumption as a top concern. Why does this distrubuted wasteful datacenter exist is the question that should be asked.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Refining Simulator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/refiningsimulator.html (don't use IE)
Genie Calculator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/geniecalculator.html - (don't use IE)
Socket Calculator - aster.ohmydays.net/pw/socketcalculator.html0 -
Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »Guys the title of this thread is about the cost of cat shops, about how catshops are wasteful and should be replaced / obsoleted.
I don't get why you're talking about AWG or global warming whatever.
I know when I first found my way to Arch and saw the sea of catshops I thought to myself "WTF!". Now that I'm 101 and go to arch and see the nearly 400 catshops I think to myself "wtf -__-". You can't help but look at that pile of waste and think there has to be a better alternative.
Across the 5 servers there are around 2000 pcs running catshops. That's basically a distributed datacenter and all datacenters I've been in have basic costs such as power consumption as a top concern. Why does this distrubuted wasteful datacenter exist is the question that should be asked. sorry my contribution is on post 176 v.v
Regards0 -
o.o
bah this sucks....
me can't answer any of your silly questions.
b:surrender
against security measures.
but what me can do is...suggestions.
=O
when we start up a cat shop teh resources of said computer should go into processing information since....you humans be so bad/slow at doing it.
b:surrenderdarthpanda16: Firefox crashed on me. Aryannamage: I don't think I am a GM that would be new.
Hawk:Do this. closing thread
frankieraye: I'll see if we can replace the woman with a stick figure and the tiger fangs with marshmallows.//Issues like these need to get escalated quickly to minimize the damage.
Kantorek: Yeah.. you should try it. It's awesome.
Sihndra: Nope- not currently possible under any circumstances. Sorry.
LokisDottir: I mean...not haunting the forums, nope nope..
Konariraiden: You don't know what you are up against. You will lose.
Waiting for...Hamster Packs!
58% chance to get tokens
41% chance to get an all class pet hamster....but they has already been freed by the magic hamster.
1% chance to get ban hamstered with the message "Hamsters United!"
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »Guys the title of this thread is about the cost of cat shops, about how catshops are wasteful and should be replaced / obsoleted.
I don't get why you're talking about AWG or global warming whatever.
I know when I first found my way to Arch and saw the sea of catshops I thought to myself "WTF!". Now that I'm 101 and go to arch and see the nearly 400 catshops I think to myself "wtf -__-". You can't help but look at that pile of waste and think there has to be a better alternative.
Across the 5 servers there are around 2000 pcs running catshops. That's basically a distributed datacenter and all datacenters I've been in have basic costs such as power consumption as a top concern. Why does this distrubuted wasteful datacenter exist is the question that should be asked.
Sorry, This thread is now about the lies touted by the AGW crowd and the inability of people to see them for what they are.
Your topic was boring and static, this is far more enjoyable.
~S0 -
Saitada - Sanctuary wrote: »Sorry, This thread is now about the lies touted by the AGW crowd and the inability of people to see them for what they are.
Your topic was boring and static, this is far more enjoyable.
~S
I hate to disagree but I do actually ._. I think it's a great topic which deserves meaningful discussion about solutions.
Also:
PWI Community Forums: Rules of Conduct v1.0
14. Keep posts on-topic.
Keep the topic in mind when you post. Refrain from posting irrelevant information.
eatwithspoons:
"Off topic: Please do not stray from the topic stated within the body of the thread by its creator. Threads that have gone off that topic will be edited, split or locked. Threads are posted in the wrong section will be moved. Threads that are created with no purpose other than to spam will be taken off of the forum."
b:shocked
Regards0 -
Foltern - Sanctuary wrote: »I hate to disagree but I do actually ._. I think it's a great topic which deserves meaningful discussion about solutions.
Also:
PWI Community Forums: Rules of Conduct v1.0
14. Keep posts on-topic.
Keep the topic in mind when you post. Refrain from posting irrelevant information.
eatwithspoons:
"Off topic: Please do not stray from the topic stated within the body of the thread by its creator. Threads that have gone off that topic will be edited, split or locked. Threads are posted in the wrong section will be moved. Threads that are created with no purpose other than to spam will be taken off of the forum."
b:shocked
Regards
Ahh smacked by logic and rules... hmm ok... Well I do agree the AH needs a major revamp, and catshops do cause a good bit of lag. As I stated before, another game I play has a rather decent market setup that PWI would do good to emulate if they can. I won't discuss another MMO's name here though as that gets you in trouble with spoons. lol.
~S0 -
Saitada - Sanctuary wrote: »Ahh smacked by logic and rules... hmm ok... Well I do agree the AH needs a major revamp, and catshops do cause a good bit of lag. As I stated before, another game I play has a rather decent market setup that PWI would do good to emulate if they can. I won't discuss another MMO's name here though as that gets you in trouble with spoons. lol.
~S
As long as the name is not mentioned it is not harmful right? o.o
What setup do they have?
Regards.0 -
- We would prevent 3.97 tons of weekly carbon dioxide emissions
- We would have the equivalent carbon offset of planting 20,384 trees (enough trees to cover 34 acres of rainforest)
fun fact- these points are only relevant to global warming. We are on topic. gg.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 181.9K PWI
- 697 Official Announcements
- 2 Rules of Conduct
- 264 Cabbage Patch Notes
- 61K General Discussion
- 1.5K Quality Corner
- 11.1K Suggestion Box
- 77.4K Archosaur City
- 3.5K Cash Shop Huddle
- 14.3K Server Symposium
- 18.1K Dungeons & Tactics
- 2K The Crafting Nook
- 4.9K Guild Banter
- 6.6K The Trading Post
- 28K Class Discussion
- 1.9K Arigora Colosseum
- 78 TW & Cross Server Battles
- 337 Nation Wars
- 8.2K Off-Topic Discussion
- 3.7K The Fanatics Forum
- 207 Screenshots and Videos
- 22.8K Support Desk