(Yeah and because of a poll GB leaves the EU. If the poll was done today, projections say it would be different. In the 16th century a lot of polls (for or against slavery, womens votes, monarchy) would have resulted in quite different results than today. A vote which brand of limonade tastes better will also depend on circumstances like the temperature each limonade has. The outcome of a presidential vote in the US also depends on how the voting districts and countries are parcelated.)
1. A17 had lots of problems (like lots of missing mods and high end items, magazines not a good substitute to books) that also made the perks system look bad. Probably even the bad game performance influenced the poll somewhat.
2. The active people here in the forums are a self-selected crowd of people who were drawn to the part of the game that already was implemented. Since RPG features came last, the RPG crowd is probably under-represented.
3. Nostalgia is also quite rampant. You look back at the old times (when the game was fresh and everything new), forget the bad moments and glorify the good. Evidence of this can be seen practically every alpha. The more is changed the bigger the nostalgia.
4. People against something are more likely to act, post and vote in a non-mandatory poll. Absolutely pure bias.
Yes, I'm arguing the validity of the result. It is just an inofficial biased poll. And the bias will always be there. And yes, if it had a different outcome I would point to the poll like you do, as an indicator. But biased? Hell, yes, no denying that. I don't expect TFP to follow the poll, even if it went in my direction.
Next stop A18, we'll see whether a poll then has a different outcome.
Hahahahah very true. These can easily be indicators of why the poll was biased. And I can think of additional reasons (I hate that "nostalgia" argument though, it is purely speculative and abstract). I can also think of a fewer, admittedly, reasons that would make people biased towards the perk side, just one - the moderators and developers being strongly in favor of and promoting the system influencing the community at every chance.
But let's assume there was a lot more bias in favor of LBD (I think that is the actual case too). The fact remains that the only piece of data we have says something. In the same way, GB's majority may have changed its mind, but as long as that referendum stands, they won't change course. In addition, the greater the difference between the two in the result is, the less likely the result was changed due to any external factor. In the end, until another poll is conducted, since this is the only actual non-speculative evidence we have, one has the right to claim that the results are what they are, correct?
As for TFP following the poll results? Hell no, they should take feedback into consideration, but ultimately think for themselves. It's that thinking I criticize, if that thinking was reflected in the comments they made about it, but in the end they don't really owe me or anyone else a convincing explanation.
With games there is a damn high share of subjectivity, not the least because of tastes. For a survival player a safe area in this game is objectively a bug founded on his subjective tastes, for a sandbox player a safe area in this game is objectively a good thing founded on his subjective tastes.
This particular subject might have been the single most discussed subject on the forums throughout the game's course. And in a more general sense, the debate over sandbox "freedom" and "forced" survival. Yes there is a high share of subjectivity and bias about each of them. Personally, I am in favor of the latter for reasons I always explain thoroughly. Are these reasons biased because of my tastes? I can't convince anyone that they aren't, but hey, I quote Freud more often than not, that must count for something
. Anyway, in the end it's the devs' decisions, their game, so we can only stay calm and give feedback.
As arguments go, LBD AND perks have both proven to be successful working game concepts, objective problems can surface in actual implementations.
LBD was argued over ever since A16 replaced A15, not just since A17. Do you really see any new arguments have emerged? How long should TFP listen to this merry-go-round if they have decided to go for perks at least until A18? Even if you feel they haven't judged your arguments right, how long does it make sense to argue with a vegetarian over your belief that meat is good?
As long as it doesn't litter every other part of the forum, there is no harm to it. No discussion has been kept alive forever by a handful of people. And if you look carefully, it is mostly not the same old players bringing it up at first - it's usually someone who doesn't know that the horse is dead in the first place. Rest of us just want to be let to quietly beat it up in a dark corner from time to time. Who knows, maybe it gets up again someday.
