ОФИЦИАЛЬНЫЕ НОВОСТИ

#54 Добавлено Seawe 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

#55 Добавлено Daomei 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

{translate}

It is as boring as leaving them where they are now. The locations are all charted, most published on bmsite.

My feeling is that some of the larger guilds who feel to have a head start in exploration are anxious to lose this advantage, Hence the agitation and the attempts to manipulate the poll.

I would have liked version 2. New exploration without the negative consequences of the regrouping.

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#56 Добавлено Seawe 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

#57 Добавлено Daomei 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

{translate}

Yes, I know. "Some of us" are better than the others, and who doesn't share their views is boring and lazy. I found most of the PR locations I know (before as well as after the merge) without reference to spoiler sites, yet I cannot say that I found a widely malfunctioning arrangement a major challenge. Much less I consider it really more complex, just not so good a choice even if the bug would not exist.

And I still mourn nexus as a site of sup materials, and hope it to be reinstated, no matter with which grouping of sources.

Last edited by Daomei (1 десятилетие назад)

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#58 Добавлено Wiklar 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

{translate}

Seawe (atys)

I'm always willing to tell where locations are, I don't want game play dulled down just cause others don't want to go looking.

We go loock.
We try finding supnodes a lot.
But we got only 43 supmats since merge.
In the old system we had some better chances.

#59 Добавлено Daomei 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

{translate}

Well Wiklar, I would not blame that mainly to the new grouping and the bugs coming with it. Rather the heavier competition and partially lack of manners like camping, attiring agro etc. makes life harder and chances dimmer. Beneath that the increased demand by higher number of players and emptied guildhalls contributes quite much and would even without the aforementioned unpleasant phenomena,

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#60 Добавлено Seawe 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

#61 Добавлено Casy 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

{translate}

43 in total is totally bad luck, bad timing, bad tracking stanzas or something i just can't imagine. i almost never leave without anything - yes not a full bag as before merge but something - and sometimes even catch supremes when i am looking for choice.

For the survey... obviously many votes are alt votes, on all 3 options. Nevertheless, if you consider the poll valid there is always at least 60% against each option.

I personally would hate to turn back locations because my last icfg save is very old and i still like the challenge to not know every location and season configuration. I put lots of effort into examining every single spot i find, so this fun will last for quite a while if they don't turn it back.

---

Casy * Foreign Secretary * Alliance of Honor
Intensive Care Bear

#62 Добавлено Daomei 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

{translate}

Casy, I understand your reasoning, and welcome your polemic-free way of explaining your point.

Yet, if taking the poll by face value, I see over 57% voting against the current scheme of distributed grades and for the one or the other scheme of grouped grades of the same material, and bit less then 40% in favor of it.

On the other hand, nearly 80% are voting for either the current or the previous status quo. So there seems to be an overwhelming majority of "the lazy". :)

Further on, it is not clear whether those voting for a grouped scheme are doing so because they are preferring a grouped over a distributed scheme, or because they want the current bug(s) to be worked around.

Though most may be fed up by this strange "vote", I am thinking about a survey with open votes, asking whether the participants prefer

- grouped or distributed grades of given materials (independent from the current bug)
- current distribution, old distribution or redistribution of material

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#63 Добавлено Seawe 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

#64 Добавлено Dinorath 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

{translate}

ill try to explain for the last time because it seems ive got misunderstood....

-grouped mats are convenient. without further considerations, this would be my choice.
-the old locations are also convenient. even having all charted, i'd love to use bmsite again.

it is clear to me tho, and no one that I talked to could give another perspective (I hoped you could help with that), is that grouped mats will make the experience worse.

why? its simple.... say you want sup mat X. while you wait for the tricky right weather, you can (and will) dig what is around. you will find other stuff probably, but mostly things that you haven't planned (you don't want to be far from the X spot). this behavior wont change, what change is the mats that are around. so, what I dont like is: the first one to come takes it all (sup+xls)

what would be a convenience will be a factor to favor the first lucky guy to be present at the server reset. the person that comes after won't probably find anything good.



ofc this vision is not taking KP in consideration. I hope it returns soon so the first at least has some challenge to take it all :D

#65 Добавлено Gazzi 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

{translate}

The "majority of players" has voted. The big prize is behind door 3. The only thing is for the community manager to decide, if the vote was valid or not (maybe also considerate to take a look "who" voted, like Daomai suggested). Then announce the outcome or a new vote.

---

#66 Добавлено Arfur 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

{translate}

However the votes were made, 203 for option 1 and 208 for option 3 is too close to call one a winner. However the results are used, many players will be upset.

If we get option 1, the bug is still a problem.
If we get option 3, many will wonder why the dig spots were moved in the first place.

Myself, I don't think it really matters which option is implemented but if it is option 1, the bug will be resolved soon.

Edited 2 times | Last edited by Arfur (1 десятилетие назад)

---

It's bad luck to be superstitious . . .



Palta e decata, nan nec ilne matala.

When one goes on a journey it is not the scenery that changes, but the traveller

#67 Добавлено Daomei 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

{translate}

It would be immature to be upset, as the poll hasn't but advisory and informative function for the devs and csr. They are free to weigh it and decide either way, and it would be childish to complain about. Yet as far as votes go, a majority is a majority, even a close one, and 5 out of 500 (1%) is not so close anyway.

I can live with any of the proposals, and we all have to live with the decision.

---

Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral

#68 Добавлено Neva 1 десятилетие назад Доклад | Цитировать 

{translate}

Anyone know what is going on with this? Did number 3 win? Can we expect a change with the next server restart or was it to close to call or are they thinking of doing another poll?

So many questions and no answers.

---

Neva