I would be more interested in coming back and playing IC if battle formula was fixed and excitment of the game was restored by changing UA and named play.
- YES from time to time
- YES i miss IC alot!
0 voters
This thread is not for you Darrk, shoe shoe!
Funnily enough I am still playing but after this round am thinking of packing it in forever…game isn’t what it used to be and I don’t mean pre 2003, 2010 or 2015 I mean in the last year.
you are not alone thinking that @Exposed …
We should acknowledge that there’s no “No” option for people who disagree with this specific collection of suggestions.
This poll inherently excludes those players from expressing their opinion.
@Airwing, if you would like this to be free of discussion, it’s only fair if you allow dissenting opinion an equal voice in your poll.
Otherwise, it’s just a loaded question:
the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner’s agenda.
1 Like
Kind of a great example here of using anonymous power to besmirch any dissent.
Or even to cover up perfectly normal, non-offensive, truthful, and relevant posts.
Flagging them in the short term, somewhat hides them until this kind of thread has it’s impact and slides off the radar.
If you can’t kill the truth, might as well maim it.
There is not supposed to be a no option.
This isnt a poll yes or no. This is a rollcall for those fading out or not playing but would like to play if surtain changes Are made.
U cant dissagree to that. Ergo not a no option.
1 Like
@Darrk I really wish you two would not assume the worst about each other’s intent. There’s such a great opportunity for collaboration if you guys could set your differences aside.
Anyway, I just had a really lengthy convo with @Airwing that was helpful. I know he won’t agree with my take, which is fine, but the poll here isn’t very useful and likely won’t lead to anything because of its acquiescence bias.
In summary, the poll here has a few problems:
-
“if battle formula was fixed”
The work to make this happen is already underway, so its inclusion in this poll is just making the other ideas sound more appealing alongside it. Of course people want this fixed, who wouldn’t? That’s why it’s already being worked on.
-
“excitment of the game was restored by changing UA and named play.”
This is framing these changes as only positive, while ignoring their negatives. This is misleading.
Also, even if UA was once again forbidden, we do not have the resources to moderate it. This effectively makes it a player-enforced rule, which is already the case. Therefore, whether or not it’s officially forbidden makes no practical difference.
This leaves anon-vs-named play as the only useful thing for this poll to represent, which we’ve already debated to death. Unfortunately, given that there is no “no” option, even this is painting a skewed picture. What’s more is, we’re already planning to change this too.
In other words, this entire poll is an easy “yes” for a dubious question that offers no representation for any opposing viewpoint.
While I appreciate @Airwing taking the initiative to solicit feedback, misleading and/or unclear communication is counter-productive at best, and can actually be detrimental.
Every change mentioned here is either already being worked on (battle and fixing named play) or not viable (UA).
Again, I appreciate the effort but in full honesty don’t know what use I will have of any results here. It is showing me that players would play IC if it we fixed a few specific things, which we already know. That’s why we’re fixing them.
My apologies if this is discouraging, but I’d rather be clear about feedback than not. Thanks for understanding.
When a person claims a significant intelligence I hold them to account.
With the tactics he deploys often enough, leads me consider his input two ways.
- He already knows this was inherently flawed
and posted it hoping it would slip by as something legitimate. Ergo, nefarious.
Or…
- He really is unaware of how manipulative this is. Ergo - no safe way to say what that implies without the post getting flagged.
As everyone is so worried about their feelings this week, here are mine.
“I love to hold up the mirror to stuff like this poll. I see it as my job to stand up for what I believe is best for the game - a level playing field.”
Just seems to keep me at odds with some folk.
Its growing! 
You two should just bang already 
1 Like
I’m also flagging this one
I haven’t really read this wall of text but it is safe to say the game had a huge downfall after the first UA round was introduced. I don’t really care about not being able to hide, I always had Lord Pickle as my ruler name.
I understand Pie can’t police this game and try to develop it, but it would be nice if UA was no longer allowed, and say a “community manager” was able to review IA allegations and had access to check things in game, and review submitted discord messages.
This of course is not perfect, nothing is and IA will still happen, but at least it won’t be so blatant and we will at least still have the myth of a competive game again.
7 Likes
if i could vote 100 times the answer would be all of the above, yes, yes and yes.
Let me know when the UA thing is gone amoung other things and ill be glad to come back.
3 Likes
Sorry guys, ain’t gonna happen. We can’t enforce it, so forbidding it gives a huge advantage to those willing to cheat.
This poll will not change that. Please don’t wait for it, it isn’t happening.
As for the other 2 features mentioned (fixed battle formula and anon support), we’re already working on them: a poll wasn’t needed for changes we’re already making.
This poll is problematic (and misleading) for reasons I explained earlier in the thread, so I will be closing it so as to not give players false hopes.
We have existing threads on these topics, feel free to view them for more info:
1 Like