Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Post content relevant to Guild Wars. This includes, but is not limited to: screenshots, guides, tutorials, questions & answers, etc.
Flo
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:23 pm
In-game name: Hi Im Flo
Guild: Golt

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Postby Flo » Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:34 pm

"Other..." in the 3rd part makes absolutely no sense, because those cant get a majority. Even if quite a few people chose to tick that option and write something in, we as mods would have to categorize the "other"-answers. I hate that, both from a effort and a influencing point of view. -> revert change imo

Pure question makes sense. -> keep change imo

TAS doesnt (because that is what TAS is after all...), but I am fine with that because the result will most likely be "Yes" anyways. And if not, whatever, its the peoples choice. -> keep change imo

The compass thing: Yes, texmods can extend the "visible" part of the compass to up to 5000 (from 4500 maybe), but not a single unit more than that. With a mod like tb minimap you can see and plan far further. I am not saying this is a huge advantage, but the question should exist, especially if we re asking for things like the direction enemies are facing, distance trackers and aggro trackers. -> keep it as it is imo

haskhasin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Postby haskhasin » Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:59 pm

I added the "Other" because the other two options are quite restrictive, and I would rather have people write their own opinion than leave the answer blank. I don't expect "Other" to strike a majority, but it doesn't hurt at all, we don't have to consider them as yes/no.

"With a mod like tb minimap you can see and plan far further"
you can only see terrain and static information, not agents, which in my opinion is useless unless you don't know where you are going. In the way it's worded, I feel like it's meant to be answered 'no' as I agree that you shouldn't get to see agents beyond compass range. It's not possible and toolbox doesn't do it, but the answer could be used to completely ban toolbox minimap if you later argue that seeing terrain beyond compass does matter.

If you think that seeing terrain beyond compass range is indeed an advantage, then I would specify that in the question. Asking about seeing agents beyond compass range is useless, since it's simply not possible (unless you somehow share agents information between party members to "see" radar ranges around your party members, which noone is going to do).

Nika
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:07 am
In-game name: Nika Iz Back
Guild: [SenT]

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Postby Nika » Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:01 pm

Flo wrote: The compass thing: Yes, texmods can extend the "visible" part of the compass to up to 5000 (from 4500 maybe), but not a single unit more than that. With a mod like tb minimap you can see and plan far further. I am not saying this is a huge advantage, but the question should exist, especially if we re asking for things like the direction enemies are facing, distance trackers and aggro trackers. -> keep it as it is imo

what does direction of enemies and distance trackers have to do with extending effective compass ranger to 5000?

Flo
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:23 pm
In-game name: Hi Im Flo
Guild: Golt

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Postby Flo » Thu Jun 15, 2017 3:16 pm

@has

I just dont see the advantage of including that option. Its like saying "you can vote for it, but if you do, you waste your vote". But I dont really care. Keep it if you want.

I also think its completely useless, but why not see what the majority thinks? People could argue its an advantage and I wouldnt be able to prove them wrong for every szenario (EDIT: For example, if you have a spirit placed inside the 5000 range, does minimap show the range of the spirit also outside of the 5000 range circle? Because if yes, that could be a niche szenario in which it is relevant. Also see below.). But sure, lets rephrase it for terrain, if the agent checking isnt an option anyways.

We should also add a question about spiritrange centered on agents that are not the player character (for example the spirits themselves).

@Nika

Seeing the terrain past 5000 range is barely ever useful and seeing the direction an enemy is facing is also barely ever useful. Its just weird that people complain about the one thing and not about the other. Just saying that if we already include completely useless stuff, why not ask about more completely useless stuff to settle everything at once?

Nika
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:07 am
In-game name: Nika Iz Back
Guild: [SenT]

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Postby Nika » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:56 pm

start dis ardy.....

haskhasin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Postby haskhasin » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:16 pm

ok, it's open

same link as 1st page: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ZYvVr9 ... 4FphX_-VYg

Nika
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:07 am
In-game name: Nika Iz Back
Guild: [SenT]

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Postby Nika » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:57 am

Any way we can track the results?

Misty
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:19 am
In-game name: ____ of the Misty
Guild: Based God Stole My Zwag [FBGM]

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Postby Misty » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:13 am

What will you do if the "other" votes on any one question are enough to swing it? If you get 48% "yes", 49% "no", and 3% "other", you can't really call that without taking a moment to interpret what the "other" voters really want. Personally I can see some questions where I want to vote "other" because I'm don't agree with the simple duality of the question, but you've refused to do anything about that.

I'm still not happy with this question btw:
"Allow macros to execute multiple keypresses in STANDARD records?"
I don't know if that includes doing several things in sequence e.g. accepting a quest reward and taking the next quest, or even running to specific co-ordinates, running to a new spot once you get there, then pressing V, pressing space, accepting a quest reward, and taking the next quest... both of these could be defined "executing multiple keypresses", and neither is acceptable in my opinion. A macro that pops a selection of pcons, on the other hand, is fine by me.
Can we get some clarification on what we're voting for?

This only just occurred to me: If someone goes through all the inactive users who still hold records and uses them to vote dozens of times, how are you going to catch that?
Last edited by Misty on Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Flo wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:56 am
Sadly, Misty is right.

Flo
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 551
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:23 pm
In-game name: Hi Im Flo
Guild: Golt

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Postby Flo » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:32 am

@Nika

Yes, all the results get put into a google doc. The plan was to make that public (so everyone can find their vote and therefore know that their vote wasnt forgotten), but currently the answers to the identification-questions are shown - this should stay anonymous. Has is the owner of the vote document, I am sure he ll add you on the list if you write him a PM.

Also, because you asked for this some time ago, I ll create a thread where people can leave statements for what they voted and why. ~10 min from now, I ll add some aditional information there too and NOT put my own opinions in the first post.

@Misty

Since we dont use a retarded first past the post system, 49% would be sufficient.
Even if there were 10 options scoring 11%, 8x10% and 9%, the 11% would win since that answer represents the biggest part of the voters. But before you wait for the world to end because of that, I can assure you that its currently not looking to end up that way (this might change ofc as more votes come in).


EDIT 23.06.: Actually, let me retract that. This would be unsatisfying for a lot of people. Lets see how this ends up and if some questions dont get 50% for one option that isnt "I dont care" we should consider having a runoff election between the two highest voted for options.

Misty
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:19 am
In-game name: ____ of the Misty
Guild: Based God Stole My Zwag [FBGM]

Re: Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

Postby Misty » Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:48 am

This system looks a lot like FPTP to me... or are you simply claiming this this is somehow not retarded? In what other system would less than 50% be considered a majority?
Anyway, that's not my concern... it's that the "other" votes are being ignored, like you said they would be. For at least a couple of the questions, neither "yes" nor "no" is sufficient to represent my view because the question is so vague, but I still want my vote to be considered.
Flo wrote:I can assure you that its currently not looking to end up that way (this might change ofc as more votes come in).
It's been up for just 2 hours and you're already predicting the results, WTF? Obviously I can't see the votes yet because I'm not a mod, but I'm pretty sure that unless things are a LOT more conclusive than I'm expecting, this vote will not be enough to settle the issues without any further debate.
Flo wrote:
Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:56 am
Sadly, Misty is right.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests