New and improved poll about Clam hoarding.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
I think I have formulated every option very clearly, so there is no place for misunderstanding about what each option means.

I disagree. IMHO you have clearly posed the middle two questions in a manner that furthers your own aims. It is not a good poll.

[ May 04, 2004, 20:01: Message edited by: Jasper ]

[johan osterman]

I agree with Jasper, the poll is constructed in such a way as to make the result appear to slant towards nerfing the clams.

The somewhat useful result is 37% think it is overpowered, 25% does not think it is. This in itself does not warrant a nerf, even if it warrants considering a nerf, which is allready the case.

[Gandalf Parker]

1) Yes, I think clams are currently overpowered and should be toned down.
36% (25)
2) Hmm, I don't really have strong opinion about it, but I wouldn't mind having them toned down to satisfy all these people who complain about them.
26% (18)
3) Frankly I have no idea, I haven't tried or experienced clam-hoarding tactic in MP game.
13% (9)
4) No, clams are just fine, leave them as it is.
25% (17)

I thought this was going to end up a problem. As I said, I can see where some people might view 1 & 2 as being in agreement with each other. I can also see where 2 & 4 could be in agreement. Question 2 seems to allow for those who dont really want to declare their own opinion to be right for everyone.

Its all in the viewpoint. You dont have to agree with that view in oder to agree that some people might have viewed it that way when they voted. So I think I would be slow in declaring a winner based on this poll.

I took classes in propoganda in the military (in community college they call it advertising, and in university the PolSci folks call it biased wording). Im fully aware that a fair poll is a VERY difficult thing to write.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
I think it does, and in fact very clearly so. As of now 63% of players votes were casted either strongly supporting change(option1), or rather supporting it than not(option2). Only 29% of the voters are opposed to change. That means for every person who voted to keep Clams as it is now there are more than two people who voted to change it. I would say it is quite clear where public opinion stands.

I wouldn't quite say a vote for "wouldn't mind" is the same as a vote for yes. Personally, I am indifferent to any OFFICIAL change, but strongly opposed to the general climate of snivelling. I don't see it as a problem as it stands now: If the developers feel a tweak is in order, I am not bothered by this. I am, however, strongly opposed to any outlandish, off-the-wall solutions like the ones you've come up with.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by johan osterman:
I agree with Jasper, the poll is constructed in such a way as to make the result appear to slant towards nerfing the clams.

The somewhat useful result is 37% think it is overpowered, 25% does not think it is. This in itself does not warrant a nerf, even if it warrants considering a nerf, which is allready the case.

*sigh* Everybody is a critic...


All right, if it would give additional encouragment to developers to consider the nerf it has archieved something already.

After all, even 37% are significantly more than 25%, althout personally I think it is clear that those who voted for option 2 are more inclined to the change, than against the change.


Ok Johan - how would you modify the poll to make it less "slanted" in your opinion? I would rather keep the existing options (I think option 2 was an very important one, it is what it said: "I not care too much, but wouldn't mind having it nerfed to satisfy those who care". But you you are aginst it it could be taken out).


So what options would you add to the poll (or changed exiting ones) ? We could put up "The Ultimate Developer-approved Clam Poll To End All Clam Polls ).

[ May 05, 2004, 07:59: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
1) Yes, I think clams are currently overpowered and should be toned down.
36% (25)
2) Hmm, I don't really have strong opinion about it, but I wouldn't mind having them toned down to satisfy all these people who complain about them.
26% (18)
3) Frankly I have no idea, I haven't tried or experienced clam-hoarding tactic in MP game.
13% (9)
4) No, clams are just fine, leave them as it is.
25% (17)

I thought this was going to end up a problem. As I said, I can see where some people might view 1 & 2 as being in agreement with each other. I can also see where 2 & 4 could be in agreement. Question 2 seems to allow for those who dont really want to declare their own opinion to be right for everyone.

Its all in the viewpoint. You dont have to agree with that view in oder to agree that some people might have viewed it that way when they voted. So I think I would be slow in declaring a winner based on this poll.

I took classes in propoganda in the military (in community college they call it advertising, and in university the PolSci folks call it biased wording). Im fully aware that a fair poll is a VERY difficult thing to write.

True. I could cover all possible options, but it would take significantly more than 4 options. I was trying to keep number of options rather low. Although perhaps there should be another "neutral option", something along the lines "I dobn't care, period!" now that I think about it.

[rabelais]

I have a potentially stupid question.

Does anyone have an actual *experience* when clam "hoarding" broke an MP game?

Did this breakage occur before or after someone got to casting Wish? (Which is by definition, long tradition, and intuitively blatantly *intended* to break the game.

(Which is why it is fun?)

This is a design issue, again sepearte from clam hoarding as such.

The rate of return on clams is (geometrically) not very good, you would have to be in a remarkably passive game to have it be an optimal use of resources.

(Except insofar as there isn't that much to do with water gems as such... a known issue, but different from the hoarding one.)

I proposed in a thread some time ago that pearls be purchasable for 50g, and I'm not even sure *that* would break the game. (Wish excluded!)

Does anyone have any non-wish horror stories about clam MP disintergrations?

I think the problem may lie with wish and water gems, not clams. Clams just give uncreative people ways to use resources that are underutilized by the game.

Killing two phoenixes with one hand grenade, I think what we might do is let water gems have a low/med level pop renewal effect. This would create a different kind of problem (pop farming?) but I'm confident our thanatonic devs would keep it from being *unseemily* profitable

People who like clams very likely hate the very (non-geometric) idea of nonrenewable resources.

Might be fun, (and ultimately balancing!) to make them choose.

Might lessen the pressure for the builder types to hoard and it's easy to kill pop, it's very hard by comparision to take clams away from an opponent.

The actual numbers (gems---> pop) would depend on the tax rate (is it currently 1goldper 50 people>20000?) but it would, particularly if we fixed the instaovertaxing=free pillage and wish problems, make for a more interesting set of options.

Just a thought,


Rabe for Reasonable Renewal

[ May 04, 2004, 21:31: Message edited by: rabelais ]