How would you patch this game?

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
The problem with that logic is that many elements would be "rarely" used, not because that there's anything WRONG with them, but because they're highly situational, and the situation that they'd be best suited for rarely comes up.

That's quite true, and a factor that would have to be taken into account by whoever (read: devs) that was trying to interpret the survey results.

This survey would not be a surgical instrument by any means, but it may be a guide that highlights areas of overuse or disuse.

[HotNifeThruButr]

Well, I'm fairly sure you're safe, Zapmeister, Zen's wrath was probably directed at me.

Well Yossar, I suppose you'd be right. It's only bad if you casted with the bare minimum of skill. But how much skill do you need for it to match the economy of the level 3 spell?

I'm using these numbers, which are from memory:

1 frost fiend/6 slaves for the basic spell.

base of 6 frost fiends/50 slaves for force spell.

Every level above min gives 1 extra fiend
_________________________________________________
Each fiend costs (slaves/fiends) 8.33 slaves using force at 5 blood skill.

Each fiend costs 7.14 slaves using force at 6 skill.

Each fiend costs 6.25 slaves using force at 7 skill

Each fiend costs 5.55 slaves using force at 8

You start getting more economical at 8 skill, make of it what you will...

[Esben Mose Hansen]

Too bad we can't gather the statistics ingame. If we could, I would arrange a gameseries with auction-style prices: If a unit/pretender is used, the price goes up. Otherwise, the price falls slightly. That'd be a laugh!

The 2nd game would be all-free light infantry ;-)

[Blitz]

There's nothing wrong with GA Arco as an MP race. I've played them and was rather satisfied with the results. There are a few nagging issues of everything about them being capitol only, but they're far from unplayably bad.

Since we've basicly hijacked this thread, I'm going to start a new one on GA: Arco. Se yall there

[Scott Hebert]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
What I had in mind was a survey, in which each spell, troop, item and pretender was listed, and beside each one there are 6 responses to the question "How often do you make one of these", being

1) Never
2) Rarely
3) Sometimes
4) Often
5) Very often
6) N/A

The "N/A" would apply to things like Abyssian troops types if you never play Abysia.

This is a good judge as to what is popular. As others have said, you need a little more to gather 'effectiveness'. A question such as, "How useful is this survey item when you do use it?" might help with situational issues such as the one Norfleet addresses.

I think that if enough people took the time to complete such a survey (and it would be time-consuming, unfortunately) then a fairly objective answer could be obtained.

Well, it would be quantified subjectivity, really. When you ask people for their opinion, it can't really be objective. Then there's the question of how to distribute such a survey. If you only have it here, then people who don't show up here won't take it except by WOM.

I think we can work with this, though. Due to other threads going on, I have a few questions I would dearly love to get data on.

1. When sending Text Messages, I'd like a text editor that actually lets you edit your text.

2. I'd like Messages from missed turns to carry over so that the player has some idea of what happened while he's been away.

[Gandalf Parker]

Everything has its Pros and Cons
In My Humble Opinion....
I have nothing against polls. They gather good info. Good numbers. They are viewed by and are useful to the developers. Those are the good points.

The bad points come when someone words the questions, or the follow-on discussion, in a way which tries to interpret the data for the developers. Im not saying people cant do that if they want but from what Ive seen its often done badly. They gather good numbers. Numbers that speak for themselves. But then they try and wave it in the devs faces. They use words like majorly broke, fix this, obvious errors, has to be nerfed or has to be improved, etc etc.

A large number of Users using or not using something does not automatcially mean any of those. What it means is that alot of Users use or not use that item. I think that is something the devs like to examine. In my opinion (that alone is a good phrase for some people to use more often) In my opinion such numbers mean "this is something the devs might be interested in looking at" but it does NOT mean the game is broke.

Even if I thought it WAS I wouldnt say it was because its been apparent that saying that can knock something completely OFF of the "you might want to look at this" list.

-- (sig line) Seems like there is an emoticon for just about everything except please and thank you.