Here's the problem...
First, this isn't a poll that asks... "If you think there is a problem, what do you think of X, Y, or Z?" It's a poll that starts out asking if people think there is a problem and then gives no option to continue to answer the poll if they don't think there's a problem.
Why in the world would there need to be further options, for folks that don't see the problem others are having, to keep telling us that they don't see the problem that others are having? That is, pardon my saying it, just plain brain dead.
How many different ways of saying that "I don't see the problem" would our fellow forum members have to read, before you guys that are all going on about the poll, and it's alleged deficiencies, have to waste their time reading, just to what, re-affirm that you really don't see the problem?!?! I'm sorry, but that would not contribute anything to the poll, this thread, or to the actual problem, the unregulated Screamer Outbreaks, or their apparent one-size-fits-all approach. Game difficulty setting should make all the difference here, and from what I am seeing, that just isn't the case, and the players that are hosting their games, are NOT in control in multiplayer games.
Now, keep in mind that YOU think there's a problem. And, to be fair, you aren't the only one. However, there are plenty of people who do not think so and would like to vote. Even if you offer options for people who don't want anything to change, you'll still get your answers to how things should change if they did change. You just ignore the votes by people who like things as they are and you look at the votes for the other choices.
Which is, pardon me, exactly what I am already doing, but without the added verbosity of providing redundant, and meaningless, poll options.
On an aside, is the software of polls not letting you complete the poll if you don't vote on each part? I cannot see this particular forum mechanic in my poll, but could someone else post poll, so I can see for myself how this works?
The fact that you prevent people from voting at all is not a good thing on a public forum. It makes it look like you are afraid of what the results will be. Will you end up with results showing that most people don't think there needs to be any change and thereby make you upset that people disagree? I'm not saying you feel that way, but it's how it makes you look.
No biased poll will ever be of any real value. They'll always be worse than no poll at all. You are better off just having a post asking people what they think of your ideas than using a biased poll. If you create a poll, have choices that cover the different options people might want to use for answers, even if they aren't what you want. Let people voice their opinions instead of trying to hide them. It's a better choice than trying to create a poll that makes it appear like a lot of people want something. Every question in a poll should be possible to answer. If people don't think there need to be options, they should be able to answer not just the first question, but all questions. I support options, but I can't even answer anything but the first question because I do support the currently implemented screamers. Because of that, I didn't answer the poll at all and just replied instead. You force people to say they don't support the screamers as they are if they answer that second question, even if they just want to agree with adding options but like the screamers.
Hold on, on the topic of poll filling out, are you saying, that the poll software prevents you from answering only some of the polls questions? If that is the case, I will have to be able to see that, before I can try to find a way around that kind of glitch. If there is such a glitch in the forums poll software, then perhaps a nested series of questions would prevent folks from feeling left out/not able to participate?
I'll ask this, if the poll software showed just a single question to all posters/viewers, but then, depending on if the Original Poster had more questions to ask, depending on responses/votes cast, other poll question would come up?
To my mind, my poll does exactly what this thread needs, it asks a question, which has but two answers. Is there some poll software options I am unaware of, that would allow for nesting question like the three I post here? If so, and I can set up the poll in such a way, I owe you three folks an apology, and would ask for some mentoring on how that functionality can be used, as I honestly have never seen this.
Now, enough off topic conversations about the poll, let us get back to the Screamers, and what can be done about them.
1) Any host player should be able to control the aspects of their games, regardless of whether
single or multiplayer.
2) Difficulty setting of a game, should largely control what can be done in games.
Low difficulty = less Screamers.
3) Any host players should be able to 'opt out' of Max Alive Screamers, and be able to
set lower limits, if desired.
I'm trying to get this thread back on topic, and move forward with getting the players in more control of what happens in their hosted games. I think the currently implemented Screamers are vastly overpowered, need to be harshly curtailed, and keep under tight control by difficulty setting. If you want to have huge numbers of randomly spawned zombies just popping up in your game, you should have the options to make that happen, and if instead, you like 1 Horde Night a week, you should be able to tone down (or eliminate altogether) the Screamers Outbreaks, you should have the option to do so.
several other folks have put in other ideas, but to be honest, I have been far to busy defending the poll, and not enough time actually addressing the actual problem the Screamers currently are.
