Another MA poll

[DeletedUser]

Not allowing the MA to be deleted means the devs are saying...

"Sure there is a solution to your issue, sure we COULD make it removable (like pretty much everything else) but we won't. We prefer you to suffer, despite there being no downsides for us, you or the player.... because reasons."

 

[DeletedUser]

I would REALLY like others to vote.

I understand that there are two (or more) groups, one that pays and one that doesn't, so some answers may be determined by that.

The results are fairly telling so far, 11% for, 89% ambivalent or against, 67% against ( the current situation), seems pretty clear?

 

[DeletedUser]

Some questions are rhetorical, can't be negated, or exhibit an obvious bias. Neutral questions require careful design.

The classic example of an unfair question is "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

In the above questionnaire, "the simple solution" is an obvious bias. The most efficient approach, which the developers are using, is to require everybody to build a non-declinable Magic Academy and then write the subsequent code accordingly.

 

[DeletedUser]

Of course it is biased, write one that isn't. It is clearly and unashamedly designed with the "pro-sell" movement in mind. Perhaps I could have been more subtle and tried to trick people, this is not how I work.

Despite this, there are options for those who are happy with the way it is, which are clear and concise.

In the above questionnaire, "the simple solution" is an obvious bias. The most efficient approach, which the developers are using, is to require everybody to build a non-declinable Magic Academy and then write the subsequent code accordingly.

This statement shows clear bias and is potentially incorrect. How can it be more efficient to write the code then change it? How is it more efficient to code for a building that is NOT removable, rather than the same way they code for most other buildings?

Clearly you can vote against the idea of having it removable, as some people have. In simple terms, this means that while the poll shows a bias that the author has, it does not in any way invalidate the poll itself. I made a statement in the comments that I am surprised you didn't pick up on.

However you cut it, 20% are for, 60% are against. Put up a biased poll to keep it and let's compare.

EDIT: So you support that the Dev's poll was even more biased, as it didn't offer a negative (sell) option?

 

[DeletedUser1539]

All I want for the Devs to change is to allow us to delete and decline in building MA, if it's their final decision for MA then there's nothing we can do about it and have to deal with it. I will respect their decision

 

[DeletedUser]

How is it more efficient to code for a building that is NOT removable, rather than the same way they code for most other buildings?

It's always simpler to write code for a single option. I can visualize a whole host of problems associated with the having and/or not having a Magic Academy, and/or having deleted it.

Just for starters, you would have to add a conditional for any quest that was associated with a Spell, and/or check the inventory to see if the spell had already been created, etc, etc, etc.

My view is that they'll keep piling on spells of various sorts, and eventually everybody will have one anyway, so why not keep it simple in the first place.

It's mandatory. Build it. Ignore it at your peril.

 

[DeletedUser]

It's always simpler to write code for a single option. I can visualize a whole host of problems associated with the having and/or not having a Magic Academy, and/or having deleted it.

Just for starters, you would have to add a conditional for any quest that was associated with a Spell, and/or check the inventory to see if the spell had already been created, etc, etc, etc.

My view is that they'll keep piling on spells of various sorts, and eventually everybody will have one anyway, so why not keep it simple in the first place.

It's mandatory. Build it. Ignore it at your peril.

Some interesting points. They already have conditionals built into the code, or how would they know you DON'T have the MA and force you to build it?

I am sure they want to make it an awesome part of the game, that is not in question. The question is "Are the Devs treating us as a customer, or a commodity?" My belief is obviously commodity, which is terribly for the future of the game. IF the Dev's come out and say they can't do it (perhaps for the reasons you mentioned) then they are treating us as customers and I will accept it staying. I won't LIKE it, but I will accept it.

Once people start paying for something, they get a say. The Devs can ignore them completely and the game will die. Ignore your customers at your peril.

 

[DeletedUser1766]

I don't understand the talk of being forced into building it, Is that just based on the quest that you can't decline?

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't understand the talk of being forced into building it, Is that just based on the quest that you can't decline?

Yes. You can't decline it and until you have built it, you can't progress to other quests. Not being up to dwarves and fairies, someone else may be able to be more specific.

 

[DeletedUser1766]

I thought as much. I'm half way through the dwarves and have the quest but i don't feel forced to build it, i just ignore the quest as i ignore most of them unless they fit in with what i'm doing.

I agree that the MA quest should be declinable and the building sellable thought - i may have made some words up there