Poll: Game Turn Pacing?

[Bash Grimtooth]

Since I am in some warlord games, I would like to have them being processed more often than once a week. This might be too much for some gamers, but (as Lord Diamond said) I am looking for options. Nothing less, nothing more.

[manaleshi]

Hmmm... I thought I voted for more options.... but now, reading carefully... I see I am not good at internet polls.

Can I change my vote to #1?

[Drogo]

Yeah, I was going to say something. From your comment it sounded like you were in the #1 camp.

[HeadHoncho]

Sorry, just saw the number, fixing now.

#1 - HH, Sinestro, Cloud, LT, VBM, UM, JF, Hawk, Rogal, LD, Drogo, Madmardigan, Bash Grimtooth, manaleshi (14)
#2 - Feralkoala, Thudargh (2)

No vote - Frost Lord

I think this is enough of a sample to draw the conclusion that other game turn pacing options would be strongly welcomed by the player base -- and especially by some of the Imperators and veterans -- even if it were to cost a bit more.

I find it somewhat striking that even with a more stringent condition deliberately attached to it (i.e. paying more), the voting in favor of #1 is still so lopsided. It actually exceeded even my own expectations.

[Hawk_]

Sorry, just saw the number, fixing now.

#1 - HH, Sinestro, Cloud, LT, VBM, UM, JF, Hawk, Rogal, LD, Drogo, Madmardigan, Bash Grimtooth, manaleshi (14)
#2 - Feralkoala, Thudargh (2)

No vote - Frost Lord

I think this is enough of a sample to draw the conclusion that other game turn pacing options would be strongly welcomed by the player base -- and especially by some of the Imperators and veterans -- even if it were to cost a bit more.

I find it somewhat striking that even with a more stringent condition deliberately attached to it (i.e. paying more), the voting in favor of #1 is still so lopsided.  It actually exceeded even my own expectations.

My only other thoughts-

We are not a huge player base so we do need to be able to agree on turn formats to get enough players together to start games.

I am currently pretty satisfied but figure more choice is always good for the player base when possible.  I think LD said something to that effect also.

[HeadHoncho]

Agree. I also reiterate one of my original points, that even just having it available for private games and Warlords/Titan games, would be a big plus.

For only a few hours of estimated programming work, I think it could really generate additional revenue, and perhaps more importantly, greater customer satisfaction and perhaps even retention.

[Thudargh]

Sorry, just saw the number, fixing now.

#1 - HH, Sinestro, Cloud, LT, VBM, UM, JF, Hawk, Rogal, LD, Drogo, Madmardigan, Bash Grimtooth, manaleshi (14)
#2 - Feralkoala, Thudargh (2)

No vote - Frost Lord

I think this is enough of a sample to draw the conclusion that other game turn pacing options would be strongly welcomed by the player base -- and especially by some of the Imperators and veterans -- even if it were to cost a bit more.

I find it somewhat striking that even with a more stringent condition deliberately attached to it (i.e. paying more), the voting in favor of #1 is still so lopsided.  It actually exceeded even my own expectations.

I would caution against drawing too strong of conclusions from this poll.  The participants aren't a random sample - only those who are active on the forums and care enough about this to post are involved.  I don't think we can reasonably apply this ratio of support to the entire 75-member player base(per ranked personas in Valhalla), of which 78.6% didn't vote.  This also doesn't include anyone who has quit Alamaze due to the current pacing being too fast, which Rick mentioned has occurred.

That being said, I think there are some good conclusions that can be reasonably drawn:
1)  There are more than a couple of players in favor of more and faster pacing options, to the tune of 18.7% of the player base.
2)  There is little indication that the current player base would feel negatively impacted by more and faster pacing options.  I would have expected more than 2.7% of the player base voting no if that was the case.

My feeling is that this is a worthwhile thing to do once game sign-up & billing are automated, but that it should be an unadvertised option(no need to update marketing materials) and that design work should take precedence.  Just my two cents. 

[HeadHoncho]

1) Agree there is a selection bias issue, I conceded that in the other thread.

2) Disagree that it creates a major problem with the results, I think we have a large enough subset of the population to draw some reasonable conclusions. Especially because...

3) ...I don't think you're using the right number for the active player base, going through that list and adding some of the newer folks, I believe the number is closer to 40.

In that light, we have nearly half of the active player base responding, and I don't think you can assume the non-responders would overwhelmingly be in favor of #2.

[Jumpingfist]

I do not understand idea that it is harder for setup. If you play a game that runs twice as fast but requires twice the slots to play by the time those players finished two of those game it should be roughly the same time it would take to finish two regular pace games running at the same time because two regular pace games also take twice the slots when added together. Either way it is 2 setups for two slots worth of play for each player.

for voting those that vote are the ones that matter. Even when there are random polls it is amoung the voters not just random numbers

[HeadHoncho]

Argument is that some players will not want to play in a fast-paced game, thus consigning them to either play a pace they dislike or detest, or wait around for a potentially very long time for a weekly or 4/4/6 game to start.