97 replies to this topic

[Wolvers]

yep very good survey

[Woodstock]

I appreciate the effort ... nice job.


gimmi the results!

[godzofwar]

good job lots of info




dang timed out when i went to eat dinner redo all of it now 2x dang

Edited by godzofwar, 25 November 2011 - 02:56 PM.

[SilentWolff]

Man that was work taking that survey.

[Mr Smiles]

We're at 223 responses right now, with someone taking #224. I'll probably want at least 300 to perform a response, since I did some quick calculations using the MechWarrior Online forum population (27,000 members) and that was the base amount of a large-enough sample size. More obviously being better.

Only 12 people were directed to the survey by a friend telling them to do it. I encourage other people to tell their MechWarrior fan-friends to take the survey!

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Or you can just buy the 20 Year Update to find out the State of the Inner Sphere in the year that the game is set.

Quote

"Do you want TechLevel 3-crap in MWO?"

Hm? What's that?
Tech Levels went the way of the dodo.
Era-Specific tech is my preference (limited by year).
Are artillery cannons, non-fusion engines, fluid guns, rifles (cannons), binary laser cannons, 'mech mortars, collapsable command modules, EW equipment, ground mobile HPG, recon cameras, sprayers, fuel tanks, arrow IV/thumper/sniper artillery, command consoles, superchargers, and hardened armour really that bad?
Half of those things probably aren't even in the game.

Edited by Alizabeth Aijou, 26 November 2011 - 08:19 AM.

[Mr Smiles]

I wouldn't mind having some exotic technologies in the game. I think some wouldn't fit in these games but we shouldn't just apply a huge label of 'LEVEL 3 IS BAD' but instead evaluate different level 3's on a case by case basis.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Mr. Smiles, on 26 November 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:

I wouldn't mind having some exotic technologies in the game. I think some wouldn't fit in these games but we shouldn't just apply a huge label of 'LEVEL 3 IS BAD' but instead evaluate different level 3's on a case by case basis.

Afaik, the matter is more that:
LEVEL 3 DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE!
Get it now?
These days we got 5 different tech "levels".
Introductory, Tournament Legal, Advanced, Experimental, Primitive.
With Era-Specific being a mix of those five showing what exactly is available in the given era, which can then be further restricted to a specific year.

Edited by Alizabeth Aijou, 26 November 2011 - 08:58 AM.

[Belrick]

Finished the survey. I cannot wait to see the results, but I am anxious: I hope it turns out the majority of the community isn't some sort of no risk no reward FPS style crowd.

[Mr Smiles]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 26 November 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:

Afaik, the matter is more that:
LEVEL 3 DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE!
Get it now?
These days we got 5 different tech "levels".
Introductory, Tournament Legal, Advanced, Experimental, Primitive.
With Era-Specific being a mix of those five showing what exactly is available in the given era, which can then be further restricted to a specific year.

Ah. You're doing a semantic/BattleTech-version-elitist argument. Cool, cool.

Maybe your rage could be better directed elsewhere? Like... something important, or not nitpicky?

If we all know what we're talking about when someone says "Level 3 technology", who gives a flying **** what the actual terminology is?

Grow up. And stay away from the font size control buttons in your reply window.

[macmerritt]

Well thought out and well done survey. Keep up the work and I eagerly anticipate the results.

[Damocles]

Nice and thorough, how i like it ;D

[Jack Deth]

Probably could have used a 5Mbps selection for network speed, since that's still a common DSL speed for a lot of people. I answered 10Mbps, since I can upgrade to that if I absolutely have to (buy new modem, spend an extra $10/mo). Other than that, the survey covers most things pretty well.

[Adridos]

I think that sticking this thread would help a bit with getting better results.

[Mr Smiles]

I think a sticky might help, but I highly doubt it would happen. Besides, it probably wouldn't help MUCH--in fact, there's the possibility of it hurting, since people really only look at the non-sticky threads when they come to the forum, to see what's new.

[GI Journalist]

You missed many of the great Capellan mercenary units that went on to join the Citizens' Honored:

• 4th Tau Ceti Rangers
  
• 15th Dracon
  
• Laurel's Legion

[Belrick]

Lets get more people taking this survey! I wanna see what the deal is with a lot of the folks around here with wonky ideas.

[Mr Smiles]

I only need like 30 more guys! Such a small quantity, and yet, so many with such a slow trickle of respondents. I posted on the suggestions page, that got me a nice boost, but we need more still!

Also, surprisingly, only 3 people decided to double-post responses. And of them, only one of them appears to be someone trolling, the others appear to be family members. I still have to clean out people who are messing with my responses in other ways, but it looks like people who were there to troll me were too impatient to make it to the end of the survey

GI Journalist, on 27 November 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

You missed many of the great Capellan mercenary units that went on to join the Citizens' Honored:

• 4th Tau Ceti Rangers
  
• 15th Dracon
  
• Laurel's Legion

I'll be honest. My mercenary list was from Sarna's "Category: Mercenary Commands" page, with extraneous words and groups (like Wolf's Dragoons sub-groups) removed. If you find anything's missing, while I can't edit it back into the survey, I can tell you that you can improve Sarna's listings by going to those mercenary pages, and editing the words "[Category:Mercenary Commands|<Group Name>]" to the bottom of each merc page.

[Adridos]

Ask someone to post it on MekTek and MW:LL forums. It should give you the boost you need and it will further advertise the game .

[Cattra Kell]

So Mr. Smiles, Thorn's for everyone- I mean Results for everyone when?

I know you can't give us a real time since processing, etc. but do you have a pretty rough estimation? This could be some good data for a pod-cast topic...