Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I also like how instead of addressing the actual grand problem to really allow people to fight back by implementing a, and I must this stress, massively popular among basically everyone changes to beige that were even tested, we're instead being served this piss puddle, and told "bUt ItLl HeLp LoSeRs FiGhT bAcK"

Missiles and MLP are so dirt cheap compared to the actual annoyance they can cause that it makes people buy ID in the first place. Make it any less effective and it itself becomes pointless.

You want people to be able to able to fight back? Make them actually able to fight back, we already even have a generally agreed upon slate of changes to do it. The problem there isn't community backing it's some appointed corncob with no accountability and Alex wanting to flashy complex replacement instead of a simple and functional update.

Even better since it was already coded to be tested it's easy to implement, and it wonderfully sidesteps this whole stupid conversation because people now only look to missiles for a couple days before they're able to rebuild instead of 6 weeks straight.

Tl;Dr quit serving bottles of piss with band aids for labels and just fix the damn drink machine.

/Rant

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

If what James is saying is true, then tbh I have to agree with him on this one.

 

Damn it, Pre posted at the same time lol.

Edited by Polar Bear ArcticExplorer
Prefontaine Post
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

unknown.png

Screenshot from when the thread was locked. When a thread is locked it does not close the poll.

Huh.   Alright, sorry for that then.   My other point stands however.   The Iron Dome is now a waste of a project slot at 30% when its better spent on an economic or other war project.   

Why would I waste a project slot on a 30% chance of stopping an attack that will destroy what, 300-500 infra and maybe an improvement?   

And why did this end up being the deciding vote on implementing this?   If this was going to actually change a game mechanic why wasn't that made clear when voting?   Everyone that voted for no change is automatically excluded from getting to vote on what they think the change should be?   If it's going to change, I don't think it should be change to 30% but I didn't get to say what I think because I voted no change. 

Edited by Dr James Wilson
spelling
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, I think that the Iron Dome percentage should have been increased to disincentivize loser strategies like trying to missile others, rather than nerfed at all.  

Edited by Natonito
  • Downvote 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dr James Wilson said:

Huh.   Alright, sorry for that then.   My other point stands however.   The Iron Dome is now a waste of a project slot at 30% when its better spent on an economic or other war project.   

Why would I was a project slot on a 30% chance of stopping an attack that will destroy what, 300-500 infra and maybe an improvement?   

And why did this end up being the deciding vote on implementing this?   If this was going to actually change a game mechanic why wasn't that made clear when voting?   Everyone that voted for no change is automatically excluded from getting to vote on what they think the change should be?   If it's going to change, I don't think it should be change to 30% but I didn't get to say what I think because I voted no change. 

Part of the problem with allowing everyone who didn't want a change to vote for a change value, is the 45% would have likely been spammed as it is the least changey option thus rather skewing the result. I've already said in the dev channel that after the next global this will be re-evaluated to see if it needs to be reverted, tweaked, or left as is. There will likely be another poll similar at that time. 

 

EDIT: Typo

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Prefontaine said:

Part of the problem with allowing everyone who didn't want a change to vote for a change value, is the 45% would have likely been spammed as it is the least changey option thus rather skewing the result. I've already said in the dev channel that after the next global this will be re-evaluated to see if it needs to be reverted, tweaked, or left as is. There will likely be another pole similar at that time. 

That's bullshit.   You're making assumptions about how people will vote which is basically saying you'll do what you think it best and this didn't matter.

If it's going to change, I should get to vote what I think it is like the other half of the people who voted for their percentage.   Not that I miss out because you are assuming how I would have voted otherwise.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah when votes are this close, a poll like this shouldn't dictate anything.  You can basically cherry pick whatever result you wanted anyway.  First of all, 158 votes is hardly a statistical sample given the thousands of people who play.  One AA could have told their members to vote a certain way to influence things pretty heavily.  Secondly, the vote to change or not change was separated by SIX votes - hardly something that screams a problem needing to be addressed.  Furthermore, only 71 people voted that the percentage should be 25%-35%, whereas 77 people voted no change.  How does 30% win out?  If anything, you'd say 87 people voted 40% or higher (considering the no-change people remain at 50%).  And at that point, 40% isn't significant enough to warrant a change really.

 

Missiles need to be seriously nerfed given the amount of damage they do, resistance they take and how cheap they are, and without any proposed changes to how they function in war, making missiles stronger and making a project effectively worthless isn't the way to go.  The vote doesn't even really support a change to 30%, unless you want to try to cherry pick it a certain way to make it seem like it had community support.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad to see this all this energy spent on fixing a problem that doesn’t exist :( 

Fun to see how people rationalize choosing the option that got 30% over the option that got 50% :) keep going !

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Tyrion said:

Yeah when votes are this close, a poll like this shouldn't dictate anything.  You can basically cherry pick whatever result you wanted anyway.  First of all, 158 votes is hardly a statistical sample given the thousands of people who play.  One AA could have told their members to vote a certain way to influence things pretty heavily.  Secondly, the vote to change or not change was separated by SIX votes - hardly something that screams a problem needing to be addressed.  Furthermore, only 71 people voted that the percentage should be 25%-35%, whereas 77 people voted no change.  How does 30% win out?  If anything, you'd say 87 people voted 40% or higher (considering the no-change people remain at 50%).  And at that point, 40% isn't significant enough to warrant a change really.

 

Missiles need to be seriously nerfed given the amount of damage they do, resistance they take and how cheap they are, and without any proposed changes to how they function in war, making missiles stronger and making a project effectively worthless isn't the way to go.  The vote doesn't even really support a change to 30%, unless you want to try to cherry pick it a certain way to make it seem like it had community support.

You can’t complain about people show didn’t show up. There was a poll, an outcome you wanted didn’t happen. Do not criticize the vote.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Kastor said:

You can’t complain about people show didn’t show up. There was a poll, an outcome you wanted didn’t happen. Do not criticize the vote.

The vote that got the most was no change.  Not sure the outcome of the vote wasn't what I wanted, it's that the conclusion of the vote was interpreted pretty oddly. No change outnumbered 25%, 30% and 35% combined.  Additionally, if folks had known this was a vote that would have an actual bearing on anything vs a "temperature check" there would have been a lot more votes.  

 

It would be like, hey should we elect a new mayor?  50 people vote yes, 49 people vote to keep the old mayor. 

But then the vote goes:
John = 15 votes

Steve = 20 votes

Dave = 10 votes

Mike = 5 votes

So somebody then arbitrarily decides Steve is the new mayor even though 49 people thought the old mayor should still be mayor by quite a large margin over Steve.

 

To circle back on this vote, the 77 people that voted "no change" if they HAD to pick a new percentage option of those only choices listed, they'd have voted for 45% and that would have won by quite a bit.  See the point?

Edited by Lord Tyrion
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Tyrion said:

The vote that got the most was no change. No change outnumbered 25%, 30% and 35% combined.  Additionally, if folks had known this was a vote that would have an actual bearing on anything vs a "temperature check" there would have been a lot more votes.  

 

It would be like, hey should we elect a new mayor?  50 people vote yes, 49 people vote to keep the old mayor. 

But then the vote goes:
John = 15 votes

Steve = 20 votes

Dave = 10 votes

Mike = 5 votes

So somebody then arbitrarily decides Steve is the new mayor even though 49 people thought the old mayor should still be mayor by quite a large margin over Steve.

 

To circle back on this vote, the 77 people that voted "no change" if they HAD to pick a new percentage option of those only choices listed, they'd have voted for 45% and that would have won by quite a bit.  See the point?

As already pointed out, the vote was in favour of changing it when the poll was closed. If people knew the vote was going to spark change, then alliances would have nudged their members to vote in favour of what benefits them. The proof is in the pudding because "no change" mysteriously received a surge in votes from people largely contained in one alliance after Pre said it would result in actual change.

This comparison is also faulty because there is a big difference between 4 physical people with vastly different personalities, promises, and beliefs versus a mere 5% on these changes which likely isn't enough to magically shift someone away from wanting change altogether.

Finally, if you let those people who voted for no change cast another vote on what the percentage should be, they will inherently be united in favour of reducing it by the smallest amount possible. Conversely, those that genuinely wanted to reduce the percentage will not be (and were not) consolidated on one number and thus no good-faith or meaningful change is actually achieved, despite that being what the majority wanted and no, I'm not counting people that voted after the poll closed.

If anything at all, there could be a runoff poll containing the 3 most popular percentages among those that actually wanted the changes (25, 30, and 35) and everyone can decide between those three.

Edited by Aiya
  • Like 5
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dr James Wilson said:

Hey @Prefontaine.   I'm a bit confused by your logic.   92 people voted for no change, but since it was a 'close' vote, you opted to go with the minority and change it to the most voted for change anyway?

When polls closed, the votes for "yes to change" was slightly more than "no to change"
Votes which came in later were hence not counted.
 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend, stop abusing the votes. 

On the other hand Iron dome was too over powered compared to its cheap price. So the one with ID is more invincible.
 

The votes are always rigged because of the majority of the pixel huggers in a 300 man alliance. 

And @Lord Tyrion nukes and missiles are not loosers weapons. Looser is the one who gets hurt if they are dropped on them hence nicknamed pixel huggers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Murtaza said:

My friend, stop abusing the votes. 

On the other hand Iron dome was too over powered compared to its cheap price. So the one with ID is more invincible.
 

The votes are always rigged because of the majority of the pixel huggers in a 300 man alliance. 

And @Lord Tyrion nukes and missiles are not loosers weapons. Looser is the one who gets hurt if they are dropped on them hence nicknamed pixel huggers.

I'm guessing you mean loser and not looser.  But anyway, almost all attacks to launch nukes and missiles are when you have no other military left and are defeated, so yes, they are loser weapons.  I'm not saying it's not the right move either, if I was getting my ass handed to me in war, I'd be launching them too - but again, generally only if I'm losing.  And just because one has pixels to be burned, doesn't make them a pixel hugger.  Plenty of nations with pixels love war and are happy to enter war, the pixels can be replaced.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Aiya said:

As already pointed out, the vote was in favour of changing it when the poll was closed. If people knew the vote was going to spark change, then alliances would have nudged their members to vote in favour of what benefits them. The proof is in the pudding because "no change" mysteriously received a surge in votes from people largely contained in one alliance after Pre said it would result in actual change.

This comparison is also faulty because there is a big difference between 4 physical people with vastly different personalities, promises, and beliefs versus a mere 5% on these changes which likely isn't enough to magically shift someone away from wanting change altogether.

Finally, if you let those people who voted for no change cast another vote on what the percentage should be, they will inherently be united in favour of reducing it by the smallest amount possible. Conversely, those that genuinely wanted to reduce the percentage will not be (and were not) consolidated on one number and thus no good-faith or meaningful change is actually achieved, despite that being what the majority wanted and no, I'm not counting people that voted after the poll closed.

If anything at all, there could be a runoff poll containing the 3 most popular percentages among those that actually wanted the changes (25, 30, and 35) and everyone can decide between those three.

Yeah, had I known there was an official vote, I'd have encouraged most of TI to vote no change and that'd have won easily I imagine.  Most players don't check the forums, I don't think it's really representative of the entire game, hence why there was only 150 votes or whatever.  

 

And you said the people who vote on no change would unite in favour of reducing it by the smallest amount possible.  YES.  Why shouldn't they have a say in the change then?  If you vote for a candidate who isn't a choice in a runoff election, those people get to still vote in the runoff.  The option for the second question should NOT have had a "I voted for no change" option.  It should have had just percentages and again, I think 45% would have won pretty comfortably.  So any additional vote or arbitrary selection beyond that is somebody picking what they wanted anyway and hoping they could justify it with some measure of support.  I like how your proposed runoff wouldn't include a 45% option, because you know very well that would be the most popular choice by quite a bit and don't want that to be an option to give it a chance to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dr James Wilson said:

Why?   Do I not know how to math correctly or does it feel like, ya just wanted to do it anyway.   Further more, if you're going to decrease the effectiveness of a specific project even for a 'short period of time and then reassess', where is the change in cost to it?   Or we just have to spend the same thing on a now shit project that is more or less a waste of a project slot?

 

18 hours ago, Dr James Wilson said:

Why would I waste a project slot on a 30% chance of stopping an attack that will destroy what, 300-500 infra and maybe an improvement?   

Sounds like you need to build more infra, smol boi. 

 

Anyways, I came to this thread to reaffirm what I said in the poll: I don't think we should get a say in a small mechanical balancing option. Should you listen to feedback? Sure. But when it comes to balance, everyone has a vested interest based on personal experience that doesn't necessarily reflect the whole community. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on now, if Pre does it this way, when the change gets made, if no one likes it he can point to the people that voted to change it vs just getting blamed for another change for the sake of change.

 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Majima Goro said:

When polls closed, the votes for "yes to change" was slightly more than "no to change"
Votes which came in later were hence not counted.
 

I don't think you understand what a closed poll is. A closed poll is one in which it is no longer possible to vote.

This, was not the case. The poll results were called even though the polls themselves were not actually closed, as evidence by the votes cast after the calling.

"Oh but that's a simple mistake!" You say. If that's the case, then, why pray tell, did he screencap the results at the time as opposed to just, stopping the poll? Even if we didn't have this blatant pre meditated forward thinking of it, hilarious incompetence is not an excuse either. Nor is the forum software so complex that ending a poll just couldn't be figured out.

"Oh!" You say "But Akuryo, mayhaps he set the poll to close at a specific date and the software didn't allow closing before then! Hah!" So, then, he explicitly and knowingly committed fraud, calling by his own admission a very close vote before a predetermined close date he couldn't change, and shocker, by the time that date came, the results had swung the other way again.

So your best defense and best case scenario here is "gross and hilarious incompetence" vs "blatant and literal fraud". In either event I must ask you why then you insist upon entertaining and promoting the antics of an appointed stooge with no accountability who either failed the simple task of running a basic forum poll somehow, or who mask-off stole it for the side he wanted when he had the chance.

Sure it ends in your favor now but basic logic dictates, much like this poll, that the pendulum will swing back. Also interesting as usual to see who doesn't actually care about a democratic process as long as whatever results favored them though. Certainly has made the world a better place outside, I'm sure it'll help here too!

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.