SpielByWeb

Rebelslayer · Joined: 17 Jan 06 Posts: 298 Location: Adelaide, Australia

This poll aims (with very little chance of success in stopping the interminable discussion I know) to put to bed the idea that there is a LARGE subset of players who won't use the currently available process of passwording games but want a series of other options like certian number of games completed, certain turn time etc etc ... ad nauseum

craniac · Joined: 27 Jan 06 Posts: 31

The phrasing of the survey is totally biased, rendering the results worthless.

t_o_m9 · Joined: 14 Apr 06 Posts: 318 Location: Lakeville, MN

I think it would be neat to be able to create a game and chose if it is a "ranked game" or "fun game", meaning will it count towards your win % or not. I've played 4-5 "learner" games of Santiago that would have been nice if they didn't count against the win percent. Maybe games that are "ranked" would play faster.

lefty · Joined: 03 Sep 07 Posts: 54 Location: South Central PA

A fun game option would be a good idea in my opinion

mdfreeman7 · Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject:

In the Poll, where are the "Neither" or "Both" or "No Opinion" options? The way it's phrased, It really can't be close to accurate w/o more choices.
I'd like to vote, but my choice is not listed.

Rebelslayer · Joined: 17 Jan 06 Posts: 298 Location: Adelaide, Australia

Hmm ... seemed to have just succeded in moving the discussion to another forum on which it will continue to run.

I purposely set up the poll with ONLY 2 options as I don't want fence sitter options available. I myself would probably use a series of other options when setting up games if they were available. HOWEVER ... I would love to play La Citta online too ... and the coders only have a limited amount of time for doing these sort of things, so unless someone wants to take on a coder job to do all of these cosmetic changes (always supposing the admin are happy to lett someone else mess with their code, which I wouldn't be) ... then the aim of this poll as stated is ...

STATE YOUR POSITION
(we aren't in the ideal world where everything can be done). Crying or Very sad

hagin · Joined: 12 Aug 07 Posts: 121 Location: Perth, WA

This poll is ridiculous and obviously slanted to achieving a particular outcome by phrasing the question in terms of being a choice between new games and player filtering.

Let's move on.

freduk · Joined: 18 Jan 06 Posts: 433 Location: Bristol, UK

Rebelslayer · Joined: 17 Jan 06 Posts: 298 Location: Adelaide, Australia

Thanks Fred ... glad someone else understands ... in fact, it looks like 90% of people understand!

craniac · Joined: 27 Jan 06 Posts: 31

In the other survey it's a bit more even.

ahauwi1 · Joined: 22 Dec 06 Posts: 112 Location: Minneapolis, MN

Perhaps if a tip jar could be tied to each proposed feature, rather than a poll? It may serve both to remove any bias inherent in the polling and to help fund the changes...

spearjr · Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:48 am Post subject:

Rebelslayer · Joined: 17 Jan 06 Posts: 298 Location: Adelaide, Australia

crainiac ... one survey includes the issue of reality ... that every change take time to code and test ... the other survey looks at the idealic situation where there are no restrictions on time for coders or even ability to code what is being discussed, or the availability of a player willing to join a game where their position will often not be great.

I'm not against pie in the sky ... just want to see more games as the current ones are getting a bit dry for me!

One piece of pie in the sky: code as you are suggesting for booting players, and anyone who joins to replace doesnt get a loss recorded against them if they lose in the stats, but does get a win if they pull off a win (note I would only want to see this if we had 100 different games to play etc etc).

Wink

milksheikh · Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject:

I honestly believe there is a lot of merit to both sides of this argument. Which makes developing a good solution that much more difficult -- doing it in a way that will please everyone involved.

I do also want to improve this site. It is my child, and I do want to see it improve and develop. There are dozens, possibly hundreds of good suggestions that have been made and I would like to implement all of them. And yes, taking on additional volunteer developers would help address that, but doing even that will take a significant amount of effort to manage. I know this from experience -- bringing Ryan and Myke onboard has resulted in the addition of two excellent games, and they really saved me in terms of stepping up and taking over much of the daily administration and bug fixing over the past year, but it did take a lot of time supporting them in getting acquainted with how everything works, and was also a big risk (fortunately neither of them have wiped out the database, at least not yet).

I'm closing this and a few other threads that have passed the point of meaningful discussion for the time being, so that (a) I can catch up and (b) folks can calm down a little bit. I do ask that you all keep civil and respectful in your posts, and please try to remember that you aren't always going to be able to convince those with opposing views that you are right.