The Fate of Stabilizers!

[Spartan-228]

This is in no way official or anything like that. What I would like, is to get a good look at the percentages of people for stabilizers, agents stabilizers, and those than think they just need more work.

 

[NTIMESc]

You need one more choice: "Add a thermal transmittance system and possibly change Stabilizers to Heat Sinks".
I suppose that could fall under "Keep working on Stabilizers", but I'd just assume they be replaced with something else, rather than "fixed".

 

[Spartan-228]

You need one more choice: "Add a thermal transmittance system and possibly change Stabilizers to Heat Sinks".
I suppose that could fall under "Keep working on Stabilizers", but I'd just assume they be replaced with something else, rather than "fixed".

I will add replace stabilizers.

 

[Spartan-228]

Interesting results so far, though I would like to see a biger sampling.

 

[JinM]

Just keep in mind, that many people who are satisfied with the new power systems, don't even bother to participate into the discussion and ignore voting into such pools.

Empyrion has nice pools, I think they are a good example of how to gather feedback about mechanics and community interests.

 

[Raisinbat]

Just keep in mind, that many people who are satisfied with the new power systems, don't even bother to participate into the discussion and ignore voting into such pools.

As opposed to the people who already left because its such a shitshow, dont bother coming to the dock because of the positivity mafia and schine ignoring anything that doesn't suit criss, or the millions of people NOT playing starmade because it fucking sucks?

 

[Non]

Just keep in mind, that many people who are satisfied with the new power systems, don't even bother to participate into the discussion and ignore voting into such pools.

I get what you are saying Jin, but a statement like that ignores silent players who don't like them and new players who only play dev build and have never worked without them.

Trying to assume the voting patterns of people who haven't expressed their opinions is a bad idea that only leads to more conflict between the major perspectives.

 

[JinM]

Trying to assume the voting patterns of people who haven't expressed their opinions is a bad idea that only leads to more conflict between the major perspectives.

Yeah, ofcourse, assumptions are not helping. On the other hand it's allways good to guess a little around the vote results. =)

I am just worried, that people take 60% votes against stabilizers too serious, and push each other further.

 

[Spartan-228]

Well currently the sample size we have is 39 players. That might be a lot, that might be a drop in the bucket. I am not sure how many stardock accounts there are, or how many are active.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Frankly I think some OTHER mechanic than stabilizers such as heat sinks could be fun, but there is no salvaging the concept of stabilizers as they are. How many ppl voted to get rid of stabilizers before replacing them was added as an option?

 

[JinM]

And here we have it again, 2x funny ratings and disagree-spam for no reason. Ofcourse people don't bother anymore talking about power, when people are like that. This pool can be placed where the sun never shines.

 

[Spartan-228]

As it stands get rid of Stabilizers are at 61%. Keep them is at 17% and if the keep them and keep working on them combine you have about 24%. Replace is at 14% and I thought that was going to higher, but I guess not.
In any case keep is less then 1/4th of the pole so far.

Now you can argue that the people that like them don't bother coming on here to say anything about it, but on the flip side you can say there are those that don't like them and have left the forms and maybe the game.

In the end all we have to work with is what we can see. What we can't see we can't know so its just speculation.

 

[Nosajimiki]

Yeah, ofcourse, assumptions are not helping. On the other hand it's allways good to guess a little around the vote results. =)

I am just worried, that people take 60% votes against stabilizers too serious, and push each other further.

60%... you seem to be looking at that very wrong since "replace" is effectively the same as get rid of them, and "Keep working on Stabilizers" may in of itself include people who were of the opinion that they needed to be replaced before that option was added. So: the approval rating of stabilizers is actually only 7.3% and the number of people who even might believe stabilizers to be a salvageable mechanic is at 24.4%. That means that somewhere between 74.6 - 92.7% of player base dislike them to the degree that they believe it is a hopeless mechanic.

I would also argue that that is has been the less optimistic crowd that has already been driven off since the Pro-stabilizer crowd have more to look forward to by continuing with this game. So, I would venture that the pre-artrition approval rating would likely be much lower than 7.3%

 

[NTIMESc]

you seem to be looking at that very wrong since "replace" is effectively the same as get rid of

If I need to put in a screw, replacing a hammer with a screwdriver is not the same as getting rid of the hammer. Though, to be fair, getting rid of the hammer may make me reconsider whether or not I needed to put in the screw in the first place.

 

[Nosajimiki]

If I need to put in a screw, replacing a hammer with a screwdriver is not the same as getting rid of the hammer (...)

Actually... that is exactly what it is. The hammer is the wrong tool. It will not get the job done. If you want to go with the tool metaphor, it's like power 1.0 was trying to put in a phillips head screw with a flat head screwdriver. It could get the job done, but had its annoyances. Instead Schine gave us a hammer and a file and said, "here, now all you have to do is file down all those ridges and then you can hammer it in." So yes, thinking that the hammer and file needs to be replaced with a phillips head screwdriver is the same as saying we never needed them.

People who say it needs to be replaced are saying, 2.0 is unsalvageable, but we see one or more better alternatives to solving the problem than just going back to power 1.0.

 

[NTIMESc]

People who say it needs to be replaced are saying, 2.0 is unsalvageable

I thought the OP was just about Stabilizer portion of Power 2.0
Also, my fine print more or less agreed with you.

 

[Magrim]

I voted to get rid of them but really the only thing that needs to be gotten rid of is the distance requirement.

 

[Spartan-228]

I voted to get rid of them but really the only thing that needs to be gotten rid of is the distance requirement.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that the derection they have started in. They decreased the distance needed and added power beams.

 

[Magrim]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that the derection they have started in. They decreased the distance needed and added power beams.

Decreasing the distance won't fix it as long as distance is >0. So that means, they either don't understand the problem or they are too invested to turn back now.

 

[Scypio]

To be fair now you can easily acces the stabilizers distance and get rid of it in the blockbehaviourconfig.xml.