Game Update v1.6631
#81
Posted 04 December 2010 - 03:16
#82
Posted 04 December 2010 - 07:45
Yes 57%
No 43%
since couple hours
#83
Posted 04 December 2010 - 08:09
well just my 2p's worth but i personally will be voting NO in the poll, why? because if im going to spend 10, 60 or 200 of my fsp for PvP protection, then i want a little more than just exp protection for my money other wise what is the point in even having the option,
from a business poiunt of view, in this case HCS, taking away all but one benefit of this option is pretty much shooting yourself in the foot in my eyes, because no-one will buy it just to protect exp, especially at those prices, i know i wont be, Now if i was fully protected, then i would be temted to buy it, especially if i was scavanging, juggling lots of gold etc etc but for exp pffffft, youve just wasted your time adding those options to the upgrades page
A perfect example of why a summary of the discussion thread needs to be referenced in the poll. Had this voter read the discussion they would know that Hoof said if the protection was for xp only the price would be less. Here is one NO vote that would probably be a YES vote if the info was known. This poll is going to be meaningless
#84
fs_mystraven
Posted 04 December 2010 - 12:17
There's nothing to help educate the players on the ramifications on voting one way or the other? As with a lot of your polls one option can look good at first, but with further thought and interaction with other players thoughts that can be shown false. When it's something with major game changing outcomes such as this, i see this system as a bad idea.
Very good point. I actually have already experienced this: a less experienced player jumped to his "obvious" preference in one of the polls, but hadn't thought about certain ramifications (to be specific, the fact that protecting gold can lead to MP abuse, for example: regardless whether you agree with that postulation, you have to agree that without at least first considering it, and various others, the decision reached is NOT an informed one.)
@Lahona: I agree with you that the polls are incomplete, for example the protection and gold SHOULD involve a reduction in cost if gold is excepted from the protection, but the poll doesn't indicate anything of the sort - so, yes, I think the results there WOULD be skewed.
In short, we are seeing here some perfect examples as to why a true democracy doesn't work - not without properly laying out ALL the facts and implications of a "governance decision". Also, there is the problem of an uneducated or unthinking populace (majority) causing its uninformed views to be enforced. It's great in theory, but makes vast assumptions about the competence of the average "citizen" at policy-making.
Lahona, I just saw your last post, just before this one: 100% agree with you.
#85
Posted 04 December 2010 - 16:00
1 - 25 stamina? Its a joke right, the idea is good but 25 stamina sounds like low. Give nothing or some decent stamina value.
2 - Not related to this topic but the topic in question is locked already. PvP, if it means Player vs Player, why the attacked player can't attack back when attacked? I try to explain. In the arenas no matter if the first attack gives victory or not the other player always have the chance to attack back and in the end the judge decide based on higher damage inflicted or whatever reason they have. Why not do the same on regular PvP? Player attacked even if it got damage inflicted has the chance to attack back. If player attacked wins, attacker loses more, if player attacked loses it loses like now. More, if PvP is about winning tokens keep gold out of it.
Thanks
#86
Posted 04 December 2010 - 16:35
#87
Posted 06 December 2010 - 00:17
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
