POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades

[Sultanofsham]

I took #2 but it should be a toggel so that the guys who picked that they dont want to deal with it have a choice.

[Rebel Yell]

Option 4 in the poll needs to go away, as the proposed Nikademus solution is, itself, an option, thus option 2 includes option 4.

[Nikademus]

well i guess it's no secret which one i picked..... [:'(]

[2ndACR]

Punt back to the top. This is your vote guys. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

No guarantees it will happen, but you never know.

[Sultanofsham]

Sticky?

[2ndACR]

I asked for it, but until then I will keep punting it to the top.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I asked for it, but until then I will keep punting it to the top.

Been running a consistant 80%, +-3%, in favor of some kind of substanative change. That's an awful lot of consensus there for such a hotly debated issue.

[mogami]

Ah new math. I see it as 57 percent want change and 42 percent are opposed (some will allow it only as an option)

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Been running a consistant 80%, +-3%, in favor of some kind of substanative change. That's an awful lot of consensus there for such a hotly debated issue.

You're making a giant assumption. I voted for: "no changes unless it's optional". That doesn't mean I want a change, it just means if it is changed I want to be able to turn it off. I realize that some people really want a fantasy version and that's fine with me as long as it doesn't affect my games.

[DrewMatrix]

You are not counting the "I don't want to read all the harangues to decide which vote means what so I am not even bothering to vote" crowd.

Count me in that group.

[FirstPappy]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Been running a consistant 80%, +-3%, in favor of some kind of substanative change. That's an awful lot of consensus there for such a hotly debated issue.

You're making a giant assumption. I voted for: "no changes unless it's optional". That doesn't mean I want a change, it just means if it is changed I want to be able to turn it off. I realize that some people really want a fantasy version and that's fine with me as long as it doesn't affect my games.

Damn, took the words right out of my mouth. I could not have said it better. Thank you.

[Caltone]

Just a thought, as with many polls the way the questions are phrased can impact the results. I think for the last option it should read:

I prefer the system as it is now

or

I'm happy with the current system

Since the first choice points out it is ahistorical, shouldn't the second choice mention it is also ahistorical? Best bet might be to have someone from Matrix write this up.

Also keep in mind this is not a scientific poll as with all internet polls.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Pappy

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Been running a consistant 80%, +-3%, in favor of some kind of substanative change. That's an awful lot of consensus there for such a hotly debated issue.

You're making a giant assumption. I voted for: "no changes unless it's optional". That doesn't mean I want a change, it just means if it is changed I want to be able to turn it off. I realize that some people really want a fantasy version and that's fine with me as long as it doesn't affect my games.

Damn, took the words right out of my mouth. I could not have said it better. Thank you.

Well I voted for that one and I support a change....i just don't want it to affect those who want things the way they are!

[m10bob]

Yep,I voted for the 1st because I want it as historical as possible,(fighters to fighters,DB's to DB's,etc)..
I appreciate anybodies efforts to improve on this already great game and would like to choose whatever is easiest for them,but given a choice,I want historical..
I'm sure players can be limited and prevented from "dumping" all tha crud types too soon just by cost or introduction dates??

[WiTP_Dude]

This all seems kind of silly. When the Japanese were designing the new plane models, they didn't know beforehand how they would work out. Maybe if the player was blind as to what the end result would be, it would make sense to have ahistorical upgrades. Then maybe you pour a lot of resources into one design and it ends up that the plane is a real stinker. Or you get lucky and plane really flies well.

Otherwise the current system of pushing or delaying historical plane models by a few months seems best. You already know which planes are the better ones vs those that didn't work out too well. You can use this knowledge to give the Japanese a little lift.

[Sultanofsham]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Ah new math. I see it as 57 percent want change and 42 percent are opposed (some will allow it only as an option)

Opposed is opposed. The wording of #4 sure looks more like I dont care if its not in my face, not opposed. There is a difference. I do agree with the 57% for.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Caltone

Just a thought, as with many polls the way the questions are phrased can impact the results. I think for the last option it should read:

I prefer the system as it is now

or

I'm happy with the current system

Since the first choice points out it is ahistorical, shouldn't the second choice mention it is also ahistorical? Best bet might be to have someone from Matrix write this up.

Also keep in mind this is not a scientific poll as with all internet polls.

That may be a problem with option 4, too. I voted for that one. The first three seemed to include no toggle option so I opted out. #4 indicates a change but make it optional. At least I thought that's what it meant.

Bottom line, reworded, 80% can at least live with a re-design of this feature, of that 80% a super-majority actually want the change (all those in favor of 1, 2, or 3, and some in 4). 20% wish to impose their will on all others regardless of the ability of Matrix to change it or not.

[Sultanofsham]

I was going to take #4 since the top had no toggel in it but figured some would interpret as whatever they wanted to to bolster their point of veiw since its sort of ambiguous. Thats why I took two and posted I wanted #2 but as a toggle in the thread.

[mogami]

Hi, I voted for option 1. But as I tried to explain. If your going to change it you have to change it to make all the restrictions there as well. Sure build what you want but no longer can you just use generic materials to do it with. You need to have the bauxite to convert and you need the nickel and chrome. Build 50,000 Frank but ignore the machine gun and cannon and tires. I want freedom and detail. Enough of some designer abstracting me to death. We track the pilot names I want to track the factory workers. There are sneaky Petes who will try to use the same workers by turning off one factory and turning another on. (Same little Japanese girl builds Arty and AA and next day is screwing propellers onto George before reporting to shipyard next morning to weld on a new CV.) So to be fair I don't think you should count my 1 vote as in favor of change unless you agree to support my "whole hog" campaign. I suggest we get right to work and do a whole new game. (Theres a lot of absraction in WITP that needs weeding out)

In the mean time I'll just play WITP as it is to get a good idea on just exactly what I hate about it the most. I'll need about 20 PBEM to decide. I'm amazed so many could decide so quickly what all needed fixing.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Been running a consistant 80%, +-3%, in favor of some kind of substanative change. That's an awful lot of consensus there for such a hotly debated issue.

Not really, it's just over 50% for "some kind of substantive change" IMO. Whoever picked options 3 and especially 4 is not really dying for any change I'd say.

Take me for example, I voted #3 "I don't want any changes to the system unless they are optional". That's just my way of saying "just drop the issue already" [:D]. I mean if you really want to force some change and devs will comply then go ahead, but make it optional.

Yet you count me in "80% in favor of substantive change". I don't think so. There were some other cases of misunderstaning as well, not to mention visitors who just went by this thread since they are not interested in this "issue" at all. Then there are those who don't visit the board *at all* and are perhaps happily playing v.1.00. Then there are those who have CTDs and would BEG the developers to just solve their problems, and don't give a damn about any "aircraft upgrades" etc.

Zoomie you really have "skewed" view on things sometimes. No offense please [:)]

Oleg