New and improved poll about Clam hoarding.

[Stormbinder]

After the first poll regarding clams several people have made suggestions how to improve the poll, to give voters ability to better express what they really think about this issue.

This poll is the result of these good suggestions, I think it'll give us more clear picture regarding players opinion on the much debated issue of clam hoarding.

[ May 04, 2004, 02:53: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[sachmo]

Forgive my stupidity...what is clam hording?

[Gateway103]

Mass production of the Clam of Pearls, which generates 1 Astral Pearl per Clam per turn. As a result of the mass production (and equipping them on leaders), the nation have great quantity of Astral Peral supply, which as we know is one of the most useful gems, as it can be used to power astral magics, Alchemize to other gems (except slaves), Wish, Empower, and etc.

-Gateway103

[JaydedOne]

I really should be studying right now.

That said, I'd like to see a third Version of this poll really. One that incorporates a few of the various suggestions on how exactly clams could be powered down (higher gem cost, higher path requirements, limit on # produceable, complete removal, etc.) to get a better idea of possible affirmative solutions. I think, all in all, you'd get more people voting for a solution that involved upping their cost or a similar "minor" nerf in such a poll than you'd get people voting a straight "yea" on a nerf whose power they have no democratic control over.

Make sense?

[Norfleet]

While the potential for massive usage in late-game certainly exists, I really believe the problem is, at best, worthy of only a slight tweak, and really is more of a whine-du-jour. There's always something to whine about.

[Gandalf Parker]

This is of course up for possible change as the numbers change but I dont think the poll itself shows the need for a fix yet.

Its a good poll, good options, Im glad its running. But as a grand total goes it will depend on whether you feel the Hmm, I don't really have strong opinion about it, but I wouldn't mind having them toned down to satisfy all these people who complain about them is a split of the NO answer or a split of the YES answer. I would tend to bunch it in with No, clams are just fine, leave them as it is. But I can see where others might consider it an answer for the other side.

[ May 04, 2004, 17:02: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
This is of course up for possible change as the numbers change but I dont think the poll itself shows the need for a fix yet.

I think it does, and in fact very clearly so. As of now 63% of players votes were casted either strongly supporting change(option1), or rather supporting it than not(option2). Only 29% of the voters are opposed to change. That means for every person who voted to keep Clams as it is now there are more than two people who voted to change it. I would say it is quite clear where public opinion stands.

Its a good poll, good options, Im glad its running. But as a grand total goes it will depend on whether you feel the Hmm, I don't really have strong opinion about it, but I wouldn't mind having them toned down to satisfy all these people who complain about them is a split of the NO answer or a split of the YES answer. I would tend to bunch it in with No, clams are just fine, leave them as it is. But I can see where others might consider it an answer for the other side. [/qb]

No, it doesn't. As a poll author allow me to disagree with you, with all due respect Gandalf.

I think I have formulated every option very clearly, so there is no place for misunderstanding about what each option means.

Option 1 and 2 are different degrees of agreement to change, for different reasons. Option 3 is of neutrality. Option 4 is against change. Certanly, the vote "yes" is indeed splited in two. It was done to allow to express different attitudes and degrees of convictions that players may have, and as you can see both are quite popular options. Sure, I could add 2 or 3 or 5 more options but it was not really nessesery for the purpose of this poll, and I feel it would be more of hair spliting if I did, and that could also made poll results less clear at the end.

As it is now there is absolutely no uncertanly in this poll, I've made sure of it when I was formualting poll options, to allow everybody to express clearly how he/she feel about issue. In particular it is very clear to everybody who has particiapated in this poll than if they chose option 1 or option 2 it mean "Yes" to change.


As I've said in my first message, this is an improved poll to allow people better express their position, and I think it did its job well - look how every option is being choosed by significant percentage of people.

[ May 04, 2004, 18:30: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
While the potential for massive usage in late-game certainly exists, I really believe the problem is, at best, worthy of only a slight tweak, and really is more of a whine-du-jour. There's always something to whine about.

You have thrown around this "whiners" accusation many times before Norfleet. And you was also told many times by many different people who have played with you in the past, that it is very funny to hear such things coming from the person, who is one of the most notorious clams hoarder on this board.

In any case I don't want to have another 9 pages argument here, with every 3rd post or so made by you - this is not the purpose of this poll. Just vote and move on please.

[ May 04, 2004, 18:26: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Jasper]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
I think I have formulated every option very clearly, so there is no place for misunderstanding about what each option means.

I disagree. IMHO you have clearly posed the middle two questions in a manner that furthers your own aims. It is not a good poll.

[ May 04, 2004, 20:01: Message edited by: Jasper ]

[johan osterman]

I agree with Jasper, the poll is constructed in such a way as to make the result appear to slant towards nerfing the clams.

The somewhat useful result is 37% think it is overpowered, 25% does not think it is. This in itself does not warrant a nerf, even if it warrants considering a nerf, which is allready the case.