DeletedUser
I voted yes, btw-so don't get (CENSORED) off at me... Where was that file???
- Status
DeletedUser
What file?
DeletedUser
13 now. Why oh why oh why???
DeletedUser
14. Maybe it's one irrational spaz going multi on us. :laugh:
DeletedUser
Yes, I know im a noob for not explaining my reasoning, idc tho. It would effect duelling completely, because like you said before, it would take 1-5 seconds.
All who love yoda or IOWNALL07, i reach out to you to vote NO
All who love yoda or IOWNALL07, i reach out to you to vote NO
DeletedUser
As it is now, if I need to protect cash ASAP I schedule sleep in my own hotel, as everyone else probably does as well. When I'm safe and sound in my own bed, I deposit my cash. This suggestion doesn't change anything, you're just depositing directly instead of sleeping, which means you might get a better shot at having a target available for xp than you would otherwise.
DeletedUser
Experience, but not cash.
DeletedUser
DeletedUser
Laziness, thats why im a dueller lol. I dont like waiting two hours for money, i like waiting 10 min to duel some other guys that do that 4 me.
DeletedUser
I suspect that that belief represents a large part of the "no" vote base.
Ah well... laziness pwns all debate. {shrug} LOL
Anybody else care to offer an attempt at a rationale?
Ah well... laziness pwns all debate. {shrug} LOL
Anybody else care to offer an attempt at a rationale?
DeletedUser
Actually, I voted yes, but i changed my mind right after. Gotta think b4 i act lol.
DeletedUser3773
There is nothing Irrational about our argument just because you don't like our Opinion doesn't mean we our irrational
Anyways this will probably never make it past Devs so don't get your hopes up
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
If you vote no for the sake of it rather than having an appropriate reason then the swearing rule prevents me from describing you :nowink:
And what reason does this have for not being implemented? It automatically takes you to your town to pray, so why not to use a Bank?
And what reason does this have for not being implemented? It automatically takes you to your town to pray, so why not to use a Bank?
DeletedUser
I'm not in the no group, but as far as I'm concerned, nobody is required to justify their vote to anyone else. All their reasons might even be silly ones - who knows? I just know that when it gets to the voting stage, people's choices are their own business for good reason. And there is no point crying why. What is done is done.
And if anyone is disappointed by the negative votes here, just have a look at BartBot's thread and stop complaining. Last time I checked, there was only one vote in it.
And if anyone is disappointed by the negative votes here, just have a look at BartBot's thread and stop complaining. Last time I checked, there was only one vote in it.
DeletedUser
That's a good point. I do agree with Vi that nobody is required to justify their vote. I would not want anyone to think they had to do that. I'm only asking if any no voter can justify their vote. It's merely a request.
I think the absence of any logical justification for voting no, after this much discussion, is strong evidence that this is a sound proposal.
DeletedUser
That makes no sense to me. The whole point of having the long discussion in ideas, and then the week of discussion is in here is to have a final proposal, not something that can be further edited. Any editing done once the voting process starts would make every single vote void.
And for all those who have voted no, I don't know their reason. But I do know that someone not providing a reason doesn't necessarily mean they "can't".
So not requiring them to, but challenging them to. (Asking if they "can" definitely has more loaded connotations than a simple "request".) Not exactly an open invitation, unless it is an invitation to get into an argument about something you've already decided on, that you've already done, and that cannot be changed.
I can honestly understand wanting to know why people made their choices. But when the last couple of pages have mostly been saying the unknown voters are dumb/wrong/illogical/whatever, you aren't actually likely to get the information you want. Though it is hard to convey in text, I'm not actually on a soapbox: I just think the way the "request" has been presented is self-defeating.
Prior to the voting stage is the time to argue passionately about things. Once decisions have been made, however, if you want to understand the "why", being a little more respectful wouldn't go astray. Not because people's choices are necessarily based on reasons you respect, but because you are the one that wants something people are under no obligation to give.
And I would suggest that the most likely reason some people voted no was because it wasn't a feature which interested them. There is no arguing with that. There is no illogic in that. And why would they bother getting into a pointless argument about something they don't care about?
Which brings me back to the problem with the ranked votes idea, actually. Because when people are presented with a choice about something not particularly important to them, their decision is made somewhere along the spectrum from "my interest" to "other people's interest". Forced to make a choice between yes and no, many people will vote yes for the sake of others if the cost to themselves is not too high. And some will vote only for themselves. If this vote had been a ranked one, nearly all those lukewarm choices would have been subtracted from your yay votes, not the nays, and you'd be even more frustrated.
EDITED TO ADD: Besides, you have a clear majority, and that is really the only thing that matters now. Just be glad that this vote isn't on the knife's edge like bartbot's hideouts have been all day.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
If this idea get implemented or even handed over to the devs on the ratio of less than a 100 total votes VS 100000+ playes..... insane.
It's a stinker of an idea. Solo play guys have to sweat the risk of loosing everything, while this will make saving for townsfolk even more easymode. The players that is using duels for money gathering, will suffer a great deal. ****ty idea really.
It's a stinker of an idea. Solo play guys have to sweat the risk of loosing everything, while this will make saving for townsfolk even more easymode. The players that is using duels for money gathering, will suffer a great deal. ****ty idea really.
DeletedUser
Solo play vs. town play: we hadn't discussed that, so thanks for bringing it up. Let me guess you're a solo artist?
I'm not sure I get the fuss there, though. It changes nothing for solo players, at all. Their risk is exactly the same with or without this option, and comes only from their own actions, since they can't be dueled. They can't duel others, so they don't lose any potential money from this. Net effect on solo players: zero.For townies, it's a small added convenience, but won't have a major impact overall; most of the time, when a townie wants to bank, they just schedule a hotel stay and bank during that. They need to sleep sometime anyway, so it doesn't change the amount of sleeping at all. The only thing it would change, most of the time, would be when the banking gets done. And yes, it would take some money off the table, but that is going to be in a minority of cases: it will mostly happen when somebody is going away from the computer for an extended period. Even then, it may not actually reduce the amount of money, because players who plan that far ahead may currently be opting to just not do any money-making jobs at such points.
Re: duelers losing out, that's been discussed already. Perhaps you have an observation more incisive to offer, illuminating something everyone else has so far missed?
Re: handing it over to the devs... do you have a better idea for how ideas should be recommended to the devs from the player community, or are you entirely against any player community feedback of any kind?
- Status