PDA

View Full Version : Online Indicator Poll



Vrasp
23rd November 2009, 03:31 PM
With recent discussion of the online indicator, the upcoming age 3 2/3 and the production of Age 4, it's time for the players to voice our opinion on whether or not the online indicator should stay, and if so, to what extent.

Please note that people will be able to view who voted for which choice, so if you vote, please also tell us why you picked that option.

Additionally, let's try not to bash any posts with conflicting ideas; people will have their own opinion, and we should hear them out without trying to start an argument, because in the end, the admins will choose what they think is best for the game - it is simply up to us to tell them what we'd like to see, try to persuade them that our choice is the right choice, and hope that whichever they pick ends up being fun.

My opinion will be voiced below, skip it if you've already made up your mind and just want to post yours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for my opinion:

I believe that the online indicator should preferably remain as-is, or should at least be put into recon and kept for alliance view.

People use the online indicator for a number of reasons:

* To find out who is online within their alliance for whatever reason.

* To try avoiding a war by not hitting an enemy online.

* To stalk an enemy who may be burning turns, or to stalk an enemy they believe is going to sell off.

* Some other reason I didn't think of when writing this.

Now I'll go through these reasons and discuss the pros and cons.

To find out who is online within their alliance

Pros:


* It can help to build alliance relationships



* You can find a member of your alliance online to help you find hits



* You can find a member of your alliance to give hits to



* You can find new online players to teach about the game, or what have you


Cons:


* I can't think of any, other than spies, but that's for the alliance to sort.

To try avoiding a war by not hitting an enemy online

Pros:


* Your clan doesn't go to war for an online hit


Cons:


* Fewer wars get started

To stalk an enemy who may be burning turns, or to stalk an enemy they believe is going to sell off.

Pros:


* You can make a lot of gold very quickly



* Catching a sell early or hitting someone who was burning turns may cause a war


Cons:


* You might lose your gold


* You can use it to wait to sell until you think the stalkers are offline

Jerre
23rd November 2009, 04:01 PM
Keep it as it is. It is good like this, no need to change something that is good already.

Greetz, Jerre

M3J
23rd November 2009, 08:32 PM
Keep it. People that want it removed are wussies that suck.

RichOahu_ES
23rd November 2009, 08:41 PM
didn't we already cover this?

and most voted keep it?

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h238/RegoFamily/Dead20Horse.jpg

jupi
23rd November 2009, 09:13 PM
Its fine. Leave it alone.

Pr0nStar
23rd November 2009, 09:44 PM
whats wrong with starting wars?

joly
24th November 2009, 04:28 AM
Nice thread. +1

I vote for Keep it as it is. I like to know who i can hit, and leave alone, because i know how frustrating it is to get hit online :p

EdThaSt0rm`
24th November 2009, 09:13 AM
Noo get rid of it. Like the first KoC ages... total chaos is what we want! it's too easy now!

snoop
24th November 2009, 09:24 AM
I think the number 1 con of having an online indicator exposed to the public is the fact that people use it as an excuse for their poor playing skills. I say this in every thread, both KoC, and RoC, that has discussed this and will say it again. Online hits are a part of the game, it isn't "unfair" if someone hits you online nor is it "dishonorable".

If you don't like it, sab the person, move on, and especially don't send a PM complaining to that person about how it's not fair. Also, what I mean by whining isn't necessarily saying, "I sabbed you because of X", whining is, "Online attacks aren't fair OMG OMG OMG" or putting in your profile "No online hits".


One thing I will say though is online hits have started wars, which is a positive. More wars = better game.


Ultimately the administration will defer to the players on this; this poll is pretty good due to its granularity. At the moment there are 10 people out of 23 that voted that want it to change. If there is a majority that wants some change, we will choose the change option with the highest number of votes.

ZAR
24th November 2009, 12:34 PM
The 1x1 gamedesign-rules:

The players donīt know what the best is for a game :)

RichOahu_ES
24th November 2009, 03:29 PM
Ultimately the administration will defer to the players on this; this poll is pretty good due to its granularity. At the moment there are 10 people out of 23 that voted that want it to change. If there is a majority that wants some change, we will choose the change option with the highest number of votes.


help me with my comprension please.

right now the majority DOESN'T want a change, and if that continues, it will be left alone?

or did you say that becausee almost half are in "favor" of some kind of change the change with the most votes will be implemented? reguardless that most didn't want any change at all?

as i read it as, most want the indicator, others in various forms, but at least they want it. and over all, so far, most want it left alone.

i am just a little unclear about what you said in your post.


also, if it is ultimatley decided to change it, a RE VOTE of the various changes should be done. as there is an option i would perfer were there to be a change. i do NOT want a change, but if there is one, i would like to get a chance to vote on it.

Vrasp
24th November 2009, 03:54 PM
help me with my comprension please.

right now the majority DOESN'T want a change, and if that continues, it will be left alone?

or did you say that becausee almost half are in "favor" of some kind of change the change with the most votes will be implemented? reguardless that most didn't want any change at all?

as i read it as, most want the indicator, others in various forms, but at least they want it. and over all, so far, most want it left alone.

i am just a little unclear about what you said in your post.


also, if it is ultimatley decided to change it, a RE VOTE of the various changes should be done. as there is an option i would perfer were there to be a change. i do NOT want a change, but if there is one, i would like to get a chance to vote on it.

As far as a revote, I completely agree.

I believe what he was saying, though, is that if more people vote for any change, as opposed to keeping it as-is, he'd choose the change option with the most votes.

But yeah, I think a revote including only those options is in order in that situation, because I voted for no-change, but definitely have a preference if a change is to occur (as I said in my post).

snoop
24th November 2009, 04:00 PM
help me with my comprension please.

right now the majority DOESN'T want a change, and if that continues, it will be left alone?

or did you say that becausee almost half are in "favor" of some kind of change the change with the most votes will be implemented? reguardless that most didn't want any change at all?

as i read it as, most want the indicator, others in various forms, but at least they want it. and over all, so far, most want it left alone.

i am just a little unclear about what you said in your post.


also, if it is ultimatley decided to change it, a RE VOTE of the various changes should be done. as there is an option i would perfer were there to be a change. i do NOT want a change, but if there is one, i would like to get a chance to vote on it.

If a majority vote for the stay the same option, it will remain the same, no second poll. However, if a majority want change (one of the top 3 options), here is the revised plan:

We could approach this is, if by friday (december 7 is kind of a long time away for this decision) a majority of players have voted change, then I will make a new poll with the 3 options in this poll + any other options the administration (or players come up with), and we will take the result of that poll and do that. Hopefully that sounds reasonable? Which will run until, let's say, sunday (that way I'll know what changes we need to make to our plans and have them planned for the coming work week)?

Pr0nStar
24th November 2009, 06:28 PM
i'm surprised that people are still in favor of having the option to sort the bf by gold, it's more of a factor in getting online hits than the online indicator...

snoop
24th November 2009, 07:25 PM
Pr0n:

Personally, my feelings on the online indicator are mixed, and not because I'm against online hits. I'd prefer that more people hit online, I like to do it, so should you! However, I think people misuse it as an excuse to complain, and that's annoying. So at the moment, I think I'm mostly in favor of keeping online indicators in. Although maybe we should replace "no online hits" with "please hit me online".

Tapchou
24th November 2009, 07:49 PM
I kind of agree with snoop here, people always tell us they want more chaos, we have this thread, if we remove the online indicators for non-alliance players, people will hit people if they're online or offline, this would make x sabotage y for hitting him 'online'.

A lot of people state in their AAs that they don't allow online hits, why not..? It's up to that player to spend quickly and effectively, not hide behind an online status.

The people who have stated in this thread to 'leave it alone' haven't given a valid reason, just simply "Keep it as it is", "Keep it" and "Its fine. Leave it alone", state why to keep it and state how it's "fine".

snoop
24th November 2009, 08:25 PM
I kind of agree with snoop here, people always tell us they want more chaos, we have this thread, if we remove the online indicators for non-alliance players, people will hit people if they're online or offline, this would make x sabotage y for hitting him 'online'.

A lot of people state in their AAs that they don't allow online hits, why not..? It's up to that player to spend quickly and effectively, not hide behind an online status.

The people who have stated in this thread to 'leave it alone' haven't given a valid reason, just simply "Keep it as it is", "Keep it" and "Its fine. Leave it alone", state why to keep it and state how it's "fine".

Yes, but I think the problem is less so systemic in the existance of online status; and more so in the attitude of players and use of profile messages for this purpose. I don't think the online status is in and of itself a negative. I think that if more people acted the way I do with regard to online status we'd be better off.

A lot of people do use it the way I use it. And that's a good thing. However, a lot of people do hide behind it. They believe that they're right about doing so, and they are players (so they deserve a say). Hell some of the people that are pro-status don't fit into that category.

RichOahu_ES
24th November 2009, 08:39 PM
i voted keep it as is because the reasons for it have been stated in numerous posts before, in many threads................

but here we go again.......

i LIKE hitting people online, i HOPE they sab me. then i get to sab them!

PLUS with damages the way they are to tools, when i am deciding to sab/chain every member, some days i will skip, but if i see them online, there is nothign better then sabbing them and breaking when they are on! some people so far down in rank, i would skip, but not if they are on ;-)

then of course if i can't see someones gold, and i am "hunting" if i see them online, i can skip them and recon others.

OR

if i am hunting, and a turn is coming, i see them online, i can stalk them and hit them after they hit someone else.

online idicate is a HUGE boon in the "fun" of the game. removing it dulls it and takes out some of the "personal" part. after all, it is TEXT based and we need something to bring to a more personal level.

not sure if that makes sense to any but me (making it more "personal"), but i remember in KoC when it was introduced and i loved it.

fistsofthor
24th November 2009, 08:59 PM
I kind of agree with snoop here, people always tell us they want more chaos, we have this thread, if we remove the online indicators for non-alliance players, people will hit people if they're online or offline, this would make x sabotage y for hitting him 'online'.

A lot of people state in their AAs that they don't allow online hits, why not..? It's up to that player to spend quickly and effectively, not hide behind an online status.

The people who have stated in this thread to 'leave it alone' haven't given a valid reason, just simply "Keep it as it is", "Keep it" and "Its fine. Leave it alone", state why to keep it and state how it's "fine".

I believe that online status should be removed because it will prevent players from hiding behind online status and the idea that it is someone disrespectful to attack a player who is online.

Now, there will be players who want online rules because they have an inability to spend quickly for some reason. these players would wish to have the online status left as is, but they probably could not establish a legitimate and good reason for this.

M3J
24th November 2009, 10:38 PM
I believe that online status should be removed because it will prevent players from hiding behind online status and the idea that it is someone disrespectful to attack a player who is online.

Now, there will be players who want online rules because they have an inability to spend quickly for some reason. these players would wish to have the online status left as is, but they probably could not establish a legitimate and good reason for this.

Well, actually, a good way to annoy someone is to attack online. Besides, no point in removing other than to get the victims to stop bitching. I only want the online status left so it's easier to annoy the noobs. Plus it can be a strategic help, online status thingie.

stonewall
24th November 2009, 10:58 PM
i voted keep it as is because the reasons for it have been stated in numerous posts before, in many threads................

but here we go again.......

i LIKE hitting people online, i HOPE they sab me. then i get to sab them!

PLUS with damages the way they are to tools, when i am deciding to sab/chain every member, some days i will skip, but if i see them online, there is nothign better then sabbing them and breaking when they are on! some people so far down in rank, i would skip, but not if they are on ;-)

then of course if i can't see someones gold, and i am "hunting" if i see them online, i can skip them and recon others.

OR

if i am hunting, and a turn is coming, i see them online, i can stalk them and hit them after they hit someone else.

online idicate is a HUGE boon in the "fun" of the game. removing it dulls it and takes out some of the "personal" part. after all, it is TEXT based and we need something to bring to a more personal level.

not sure if that makes sense to any but me (making it more "personal"), but i remember in KoC when it was introduced and i loved it.

That's the first post key has made that she is completely right on .

1 more reason the whiny pms make me lol

RichOahu_ES
25th November 2009, 01:31 AM
that she is


F/U stone

;-P

Tapchou
25th November 2009, 01:38 AM
M3J come up with the idea that you need 2 times the spy of the targets sentry, opinions?

M3J
25th November 2009, 01:40 AM
M3J come up with the idea that you need 2 times the spy of the targets sentry, opinions?

I'm gonna fap you in the head, you goddamn Brit. X_X I never said such thing! :mad

But yeah, I'm mixed up. I don't mind, but yet this could be quite annoying. Although I prefer online indicator, whether twice the spy than sentry, I don't see why we can't take it off.
I just want the indicator to piss off people when I see 'em online.

RichOahu_ES
25th November 2009, 01:46 AM
M3J come up with the idea that you need 2 times the spy of the targets sentry, opinions?

i can confirm this.

i was there.

i don't agree with it, but i was there.

Vrasp
25th November 2009, 01:49 AM
With regard to complaining about online hits, I think that's more a victim of the profile than the online indicator.

If people couldn't make up their own rules for the game to put in their profile, they wouldn't be able to forewarn of the consequences, ergo people could still online hit.

Those who feel that online hitting is in bad form (lol) could still not do it or whatever, but those who use it as annoyance factors (as explained in Key's posts, and yes, probing/sabbing someone online is awesome) can still enjoy that.

Since a 2 to 1 spy to sentry ratio was brought up, I think it's a decent idea, but not a necessary implementation - if that is the case, it should just as well be removed or added into recons (since the only real reason to remove it is to prevent the complaining).

To head off any suggestion that the 2:1 ratio should be put in for seeing gold, I will make a note that doing so would make things rather difficult for the casual player looking to use some turns and make some gold, and will likely make some newcomers leave pretty quickly, since they can't find any gold to steal.

We haven't really seen any posts on why it _should be removed_, so I'm really hoping someone will make a decent post on that matter. The only real reason I've seen so far is that people use it as an excuse to complain, but again, I feel that comes more from having profiles.

Pyrorazer
25th November 2009, 04:52 AM
Keep it for allaince only

U dont want to be accidently attack your own members for gold thinking there offline, when they have just burning 2 turns and are holding 500mill..

So far all the reasons i have seen on IRC have all be about People wanting to sab, and having the online indicator does that, give people a reason to sab someoen, and hide behind it as an excuse to hold 500mill gold that shouldnt be the case

Also, removing the online indicator will be more risky attacking people and trying to build that important gold for upgrades etc, (trying to do it in bulk without banking and losing 20%) also never knowing if the person is online ready to sell there DA and rebuy it, or if there waiting to sab abck so u break ur tools while ur trying to sab them

snoop
25th November 2009, 06:56 AM
1 more reason the whiny pms make me lol

I really just want to end the whiny PMs and the threats against new players over it that drive people away... I think it scares away potential players when they hit someone and then that person turns aroudn and demands CC or else. Taking that excuse away is a positive.

However, taking Key's fun away is a huge negative; I really don't like to disappoint her.

zakske
25th November 2009, 07:27 AM
I agree with Key here, hitting people online should be done on purpose and not accidentally :). Instead of having more random chaos, people should be motivated or should have more ways to start chaos themselves. (I accidentally voted something else, I don't know what exactly...)

Also, I like the idea of needing twice someone's sentry in spy to be able to see the gold. It's only reasonable I think, and I don't think the game would become too difficult with it. It will only make people spend more effort into hunting for gold.

RichOahu_ES
25th November 2009, 09:52 AM
However, taking Key's fun away is a huge negative; I really don't like to disappoint her.



bite me

snoop
25th November 2009, 10:27 AM
bite me

I always assumed you were a chick cause of the signature... It'd be kind of creepy if you weren't....

RichOahu_ES
25th November 2009, 11:50 AM
creepy that i go to the pro bowl each year and take some great shots of the cheer leaders?

and i love a nice ass hense my avatar?

whatever

M3J
25th November 2009, 07:46 PM
Keep it for allaince only

U dont want to be accidently attack your own members for gold thinking there offline, when they have just burning 2 turns and are holding 500mill..

So far all the reasons i have seen on IRC have all be about People wanting to sab, and having the online indicator does that, give people a reason to sab someoen, and hide behind it as an excuse to hold 500mill gold that shouldnt be the case

Also, removing the online indicator will be more risky attacking people and trying to build that important gold for upgrades etc, (trying to do it in bulk without banking and losing 20%) also never knowing if the person is online ready to sell there DA and rebuy it, or if there waiting to sab abck so u break ur tools while ur trying to sab them
But once again, it's the own members' problem for holding that much gold. I give people grace period and if they haven't spent, they gonna get their golds nabbed. It's their problem that they don't bank or wait too long to.
TBH, many people I've hit online, they haven't really sabbed back or anything. Besides, there's no excuse for losing gold when online. Plus, it's worth it.
Online indicator is a good way to strategize, like I mentioned. Maximize damage, maximize annoying people, and etc.

Pyrorazer
25th November 2009, 10:27 PM
so now RoC is about annoying people? :whatgives

Pauly_D
26th November 2009, 06:28 AM
so now RoC is about annoying people? :whatgives

in wartime frustrating people does a lot more to your opponent than just sabbing/massing them

Frost
26th November 2009, 08:23 AM
keep as is, it is hard enough to recruit without knowing who is online at the time you are

M3J
26th November 2009, 12:06 PM
so now RoC is about annoying people? :whatgives

Partially...


Fine, I added that aspect of the game in. <_< It's about having fun. And in wartime, annoying people can be a good strategy. More susceptible to mistakes and etc. FUCK YOUR ENEMIES PSYCHOLOGICALLY!! MUAHAHAHAHAHA