Exp poll

[madpeople]

QUOTE (Lykourgos @ May 6 2008, 06:32 PM) mad I think you should get a slightly less tiny sample size before quoting percentages like that

turns out more than 15 people play this game

my point was it is easy to see what the results of the poll indicate. it wasn't indications of the final results which would have more votes, since they aren't there yet

QUOTE (takingarms1 @ May 6 2008, 06:41 PM) The poll is fundamentally flawed because it is too complex and as stated many people did not vote in it for this reason, and as Lyk stated your sample size is ridiculously small. Not to mention that creating a core based on polling is a ludicrous idea.

i don't understand how people can't understand it?

it looks really simple to me.

and no one said we were using this to decide what goes in the core that's up to aarm not me, i just wanted to know what the general feeling was, and it appears to be similar but not exactly the same as what i thought it was.

[takingarms1]

madman, I know it seems simple to you, but your mind works in ways that most do not. /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

I look at that poll with all its options and my brain goes *boggle*

[madpeople]

manual for the first question (don't be scared, it has pretty colours /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> )

the second is the same except change the words scan range and fuel around

the 3rd one isn't really that hard is it?

[mcwarren4]

madp; I think you would get more response to your poll if you just did something like this:

A. Changes to fuel:
1. None
2. A little (maybe put your numerical explaination)
3. Moderate (maybe put your numerical explaination)
4. A lot (maybe put your numerical explaination)

B. Changes to scan:
1. None
2. A little (maybe put your numerical explaination)
3. Moderate (maybe put your numerical explaination)
4. A lot (maybe put your numerical explaination)

C. Other crap:
1. Item A (Yes/No)
2. Item B (Yes/No)
3. Item C (Yes/No)
4. Item D (Yes/No)

The flaw is that you are asking two questions for each item to vote on when you accomplish the same thing asking each question indvidually.

edit - I guess it doesn't answer the same question; something is just too creepy about the (and change scan too) /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":biggrin:" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />

[shibbyx1]

I found the poll simple, but maybe thats cause i'm on my add medication (yesterday i was board, and read through RoC 4 times over) so yeah /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

I think scan range should stay the same, but reduce fuel capacity, so ints can still travel across sectors quick, but harder to catch a scout running away. At the moment, as long as i have full fuel, i can catch most ships that try to run away, unless they rip or i lose scan.

I also find it hard to run away from ints, every time they boost and catch up, fire those crucial seconds then fall back, it only takes them 1 or 2 times more (if they aim) and you as good as podded.

That is of course, if both of us are in an int, then we fight to the pod

[Death3D]

His point was to be able to correlate who wants one thing, who wants the other, who wants none and who wants both.

If he had made it simpler, he would've had a hard time differentiating 2 couple of guys: 1 couple picked both and none, and 1 couple picking 1 of each.

[madpeople]

QUOTE (Death3D @ May 8 2008, 01:43 AM) His point was to be able to correlate who wants one thing, who wants the other, who wants none and who wants both.

If he had made it simpler, he would've had a hard time differentiating 2 couple of guys: 1 couple picked both and none, and 1 couple picking 1 of each.

That is correct.

[Grim_Reaper_4u]

Combinations, permutations, fornications, bah ... i hate statistics /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />