Jump to content

Public Opinion Poll For The Newer Pts(Now Including The Newest Changes)


43 replies to this topic

Poll: Does the current Rendition of the PTS improve upon the older models? (45 member(s) have cast votes)

Does the current PTS 4 improve upon older models?

  1. Yes, it improves in some areas but has flaws in others (23 votes [53.49%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 53.49%

  2. Does not improve upon older renditions (20 votes [46.51%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 46.51%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 15 September 2016 - 05:56 PM

View PostScarecrowES, on 15 September 2016 - 04:50 PM, said:


The poll did show that more players thought ED would negatively impact the game than not, and that PGI would likely see negative impact on their financials because of it. As I said at the time, from a business perspective, putting ED on the live servers would likely be a financial disaster for them.

how did you get that? wanna link all the previous polls? because ED was always ahead.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 15 September 2016 - 06:17 PM.


#22 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 15 September 2016 - 08:18 PM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 15 September 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

how did you get that? wanna link all the previous polls? because ED was always ahead.


http://mwomercs.com/...ference-survey/

Not if you actually ask something beyond a black/white question, and even when it was black and white, ED was half.

Half, by the way, is not good. If only half of your voters are even willing to consider a change, but a full 3/4 say they're fine if things stay the same, that's an extremely good indication that you're looking at a dead end.

Notice only tepid support for ED, while every question that mentions an aspect of how ED is performing notes players believe it performs worse. Also note players indicate a financial hit to PGI should ED go Live, and no desire to continue developing the system. And this was back in PTS1/2 when favorability was highest.

Just as a note here... I guarantee you I could put up a 2-option poll and get overwhelming support that the sky is, in fact, purple. Limited voting options plus biased answers = pointless result.

#23 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 15 September 2016 - 10:45 PM

View PostScarecrowES, on 15 September 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:


http://mwomercs.com/...ference-survey/

Not if you actually ask something beyond a black/white question, and even when it was black and white, ED was half.

Half, by the way, is not good. If only half of your voters are even willing to consider a change, but a full 3/4 say they're fine if things stay the same, that's an extremely good indication that you're looking at a dead end.

Notice only tepid support for ED, while every question that mentions an aspect of how ED is performing notes players believe it performs worse. Also note players indicate a financial hit to PGI should ED go Live, and no desire to continue developing the system. And this was back in PTS1/2 when favorability was highest.

Just as a note here... I guarantee you I could put up a 2-option poll and get overwhelming support that the sky is, in fact, purple. Limited voting options plus biased answers = pointless result.

That polled you linked was a bit convoluted . You can keep trying but their is nothing wrong with my pole. I don't actually know why you are trying so hard. Maybe because it was me that specially made the poll, or that you are in denial that ED always stays ahead.

my options are equivalent to asking did Einstein improve upon newtons laws? you can ask did they completely replace them> no they didn't.

You can ask did they improve on some areas and lack on others?> sure they allowed us to measure the extremely small but Newtons laws are still used for the extremely large and the difference in extremes is sub-atomic to macro sized objects.

You can also ask did they completely fail? and not really improve upon anything? well in this case no.

All simple questions that can be asked and answered in the format i had given. you're not using anything except for a preference for how somebody else does a poll and they have a ton of options some which don't have any relevant meaning. Also their are obvious flaws in his poll so I hoped you were fair and pointed them out as well. That's why you keep it simple and relevant. I could make a more complex poll but I didn't because I didn't need to.

There you have it. Now go forth and leave it at rest.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 15 September 2016 - 10:53 PM.


#24 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 15 September 2016 - 11:02 PM

I also want to add with more complex poll you are diluting your answers.

nobody objected too much to the first GH or ED poll which gave only 2 options. If you actually tested ED it was clear what it's flaws and strengthen were when stacked objectively to GH

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 15 September 2016 - 11:03 PM.


#25 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 15 September 2016 - 11:16 PM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 15 September 2016 - 11:02 PM, said:

I also want to add with more complex poll you are diluting your answers.

nobody objected too much to the first GH or ED poll which gave only 2 options. If you actually tested ED it was clear what it's flaws and strengthen were when stacked objectively to GH


Like how?

Last I checked..
PTSv2: Nerfed SRM spread needlessly (especially on SRM4s)
PTSv3: Nerfed LL unnecessarily (it wasn't OP or UP, just meh - now totally undesirable from said changes)
PTSv4: Nerfed heat capacity+dissipation, hurting Lights the most

Note that this isn't a complete list (there are buffs in some cases, like the CERMED, though totally unnecessary.. and the LRM20), but there's more nerfs than buffs (like CUACs, LRM5).

So... I can't say this is positive by any stretch and no spinning of these facts will change my mind and opinion on this matter.

Edited by Deathlike, 15 September 2016 - 11:16 PM.


#26 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 16 September 2016 - 10:54 AM

Let's be clear here... GH is pretty much universally reviled. I guarantee if you ask the community "Do you like Ghost Heat," your results will be a resounding NO.

However, you ask, "Do you like Energy Draw or Ghost Heat better," and half of the respondents say they actually like the universally reviled system better. The fact that half of players prefer a system the admit they hate over Energy Draw should tell you everything you need to know about the proposed system.

However, if you want to know WHY people feel the way they do, you have to ask better questions. Mixed builds and build variety in general show how healthy and balanced the game is. This is something that people praise for GH for providing on the live server, whose balance and build variety are the best it's ever been. Do people say build variety is important? Why yes, yes they DO think it's important. Do they think that ED does as good a job as GH at promoting build variety? No, no they don't.

What about complexity? That's a primary complaint against GH, and one of the key design philosophies of ED. Is it succeeding at being less complex? Even back in PTS1 and 2, players said no, ED was NOT succeeding at being less complex. And this was BEFORE ED went off the rails in 3 and 4.

Would ED improve match quality? That's perhaps THE most important question, right? The whole point of any change to a game is to make it more fun and improve the quality of the game. Does players think the game would be better under ED? No... they think matches would suffer under ED.

And outside my poll... alphas. One of the primary design philosophies of ED is putting a check on alphas, starting from a universal 30-point damage cap and steadily working its way away from that. Do players even agree that this is a worth objective? Placing such low universal damage caps? No... players do not actually support this objective. And realistically, even ED hasn't supported this objective since before its concept was finalized.

ED fails, in the opinions of players, in any every way it's being tested for. Regardless of whether players may have a positive opinion on the general concept of ED, they acknowledge it doesn't improve on GH.

Of course, if you point to a "ED vs GH" poll, and you see a 50% result for ED, some people are inclined to say that's actually a positive result for ED. It's not.

#27 Monkey Lover

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 7,918 posts
  • LocationWazan

Posted 16 September 2016 - 01:20 PM

Poll.basically has two positive and 1 negative, due to this the negative will be off.

But seeing you can vote for more than 1 and do both positives maybe it equals out?
Lol

#28 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 16 September 2016 - 04:16 PM

View PostMonkey Lover, on 16 September 2016 - 01:20 PM, said:

Poll.basically has two positive and 1 negative, due to this the negative will be off.

But seeing you can vote for more than 1 and do both positives maybe it equals out?
Lol

the negative will not be off. the 2nd option is a middle road. between a positive and negative.

the first option is positive, and the second option is postive-negative, and the 3rd is a negative.

not my choice of words to use

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 16 September 2016 - 04:18 PM.


#29 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 16 September 2016 - 05:50 PM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 16 September 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

the negative will not be off. the 2nd option is a middle road. between a positive and negative.

the first option is positive, and the second option is postive-negative, and the 3rd is a negative.

not my choice of words to use


First option is strongly positive, second option is somewhat positive, and third option is neutral. You have NO negative options.

#30 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 17 September 2016 - 06:12 AM

View PostScarecrowES, on 16 September 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:


First option is strongly positive, second option is somewhat positive, and third option is neutral. You have NO negative options.

you keep asserting that and I don't know what else to tell you.

The first option is without a doubt positive

the second option is it improves upon previous implementations of ED and GH. and before GH, of all older heat scales, but
even has some flaws that would need to be fixed. The ED was also just updated.

the 3rd options is a no it doesn't improve anything. That is as negative as it gets.

I kinda get the impression that you don't know what positive, negative, and neutral means if you keep repeating the same thing after I have explained it multiple times.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 17 September 2016 - 06:14 AM.


#31 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 17 September 2016 - 02:49 PM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 17 September 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

you keep asserting that and I don't know what else to tell you.

The first option is without a doubt positive

the second option is it improves upon previous implementations of ED and GH. and before GH, of all older heat scales, but
even has some flaws that would need to be fixed. The ED was also just updated.

the 3rd options is a no it doesn't improve anything. That is as negative as it gets.

I kinda get the impression that you don't know what positive, negative, and neutral means if you keep repeating the same thing after I have explained it multiple times.


I think you don't understand what negative and neutral mean. Here, let me help:

neg·a·tive
ˈneɡədiv/
adjective
1.(of a word, clause, or proposition) expressing denial, negation, or refutation; stating or asserting that something is not the case.

neu·tral
ˈn(y)o͞otrəl/Submit
adjective
1. not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartial.

You have two answers that register differing positive results in favor of the specified ED PTS, and one neutral. Your 3rd response indicates posits that the current implementation is equal to the previous implementation - and thus is neutral. You have not allowed for any position indicating the the current implementation is WORSE than the previous one - and thus you haven't allowed any negative results against it.
Your choices are, "it's really good," "it's a little good," and "it's neither good nor bad." There is NO answer for "it's bad.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 17 September 2016 - 02:52 PM.


#32 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 17 September 2016 - 02:55 PM

good too know.

I don't think you're making a compelling case, but you made it.

#33 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 17 September 2016 - 02:59 PM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 17 September 2016 - 02:55 PM, said:

good too know.

I don't think you're making a compelling case, but you made it.

Posted Image

#34 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 17 September 2016 - 03:02 PM

I didn't fail at anything. You asserting something and even by the definitions you gave doesn't prove that your assertions are correct.

Because those definitions still fit with what I wrote.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 17 September 2016 - 03:18 PM.


#35 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 17 September 2016 - 03:20 PM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 17 September 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

I didn't fail at anything. You asserting something and even by the definitions you gave doesn't prove that your assertions are correct.


LOGIC= reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

"Does not improve upon older renditions" =/= "is worse than older renditions." If anything, logically, your most negative interpretation of this is a neutral response between the two given options - "is not better or worse than older renditions."

#36 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 17 September 2016 - 03:22 PM

View PostScarecrowES, on 17 September 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:


LOGIC= reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

"Does not improve upon older renditions" =/= "is worse than older renditions." If anything, logically, your most negative interpretation of this is a neutral response between the two given options - "is not better or worse than older renditions."

Does not improve does not mean it's negative. It could in fact be worse or just as good as older mechanisms. It's possible that older mechanisms could have been better. Your assessment of what I said is not correct. As i don't need your interpretation after I already explained what I meant.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 17 September 2016 - 03:23 PM.


#37 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 17 September 2016 - 03:26 PM

all values improved is strictly positive

values improved and still maintains flaws is both positive and could be neutral, or could be negative if it made things worse.

Does not improve means it failed to do what it needed to do. So in that case its a negative when either based on it's own merits or set against an older standard

positve and negative is your wording not mine. I am simply using what you are saying. Those words might not even be good enough to explain anything.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 17 September 2016 - 03:27 PM.


#38 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 17 September 2016 - 03:27 PM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 17 September 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

Does not improve does not mean it's negative. It could in fact be worse or just as good as older mechanisms. It's possible that older mechanisms could have been better. Your assessment of what I said is not correct. As i don't need your interpretation after I already explained what I meant.

Posted Image

#39 BLOOD WOLF

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Jaws
  • The Jaws
  • 6,368 posts
  • Locationnowhere

Posted 17 September 2016 - 03:44 PM

aaahh, the smell of trolling

#40 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 17 September 2016 - 03:59 PM

View PostBLOOD WOLF, on 17 September 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

aaahh, the smell of trolling


No... I actually REALLY want to help you. You need help. Let me help you.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users