Polls General Discussion

[strilmus]

the issue i see with making dragons aggressive now is that since they all have ranged attacks, it might be a bit more difficult to get past them on a world that isn't being aggressively farmed

[Ambler]

Yeah, they're going to have a short line of sight required to actually focus on you, probably 2-3 squares: https://mobile.twitter.com/JagexDaze/status/529973340849852416?p=v

[strilmus]

I noticed that somebody in the tweets is commenting about afking monsters being an issue, but.....the reason why the poll is in a stalemate is because a large portion of the people wanting aggro is for that very reason...

[Sy_Accursed]

afking and making it a pita to traverse dungeons is why I dont want aggro back.

[Arceus]

It would be nice to be able to afk train combat on monsters as it was before.  Obviously one would be able to get faster kills and hence better xp using strategy and threshold/ultimate abilities if not afk, so it would not be the most effective method, but would grant a good amount of xp (in theory anyway).

[essiw]

So both the aggressive and the ironman poll were nearly 50/50. Strange thing about the ironman poll was that at the beginning there was a 10% favour for no bonus xp weekends, that slowly decreased to only a favour with 100 votes ahead... I am wondeirng if this is the case because of people making ironman accounts just so they can manipulate the vote...

 

 

Edit: Also I am wondering if jagex will just go for the winning option at both polls, while the outcomes of those polls are the options I choose I don't think it is fair to just go for the winning option... Because it is basic statistic knowledge that there is always an error in these votes (and thus it could be the other way around if there is only a small difference). Also even if you don't count for the error, it just doesn't seem fair to me to ignore the other 45%+ of the people.

[Arceus]

If you have 10,000 votes, margin of error is 1/sqrt(10,000) = 1%...50,000 votes, 1/sqrt(50,000) = 0.4%.

 

Margin of error is not a big issue here, but I do agree that it will be interesting to see how they resolve the effective tie.

[essiw]

^

Thanks for doing the math :)

We had less than 10k votes for the ironman poll though, so yes margin of error is a big issue :P

[Arceus]

^

Thanks for doing the math :)

We had less than 10k votes for the ironman poll though, so yes margin of error is a big issue :P

Aha, true, fewer votes due to restricting it to Ironman players only (and a sensible policy too!).

[helring]

So both the aggressive and the ironman poll were nearly 50/50. Strange thing about the ironman poll was that at the beginning there was a 10% favour for no bonus xp weekends, that slowly decreased to only a favour with 100 votes ahead... I am wondeirng if this is the case because of people making ironman accounts just so they can manipulate the vote...

 

 

Edit: Also I am wondering if jagex will just go for the winning option at both polls, while the outcomes of those polls are the options I choose I don't think it is fair to just go for the winning option... Because it is basic statistic knowledge that there is always an error in these votes (and thus it could be the other way around if there is only a small difference). Also even if you don't count for the error, it just doesn't seem fair to me to ignore the other 45%+ of the people.

 

The issue is for both of these polls, they're kind of exclusive. You either do this or you don't do this, little to no middle ground. So you either ignore the large group that lost the poll or you ignore the larger group that won the poll. 

 

With some of the other polls they could say "ok, X won so we'll do that first, but Y was incredibly close so we're going to schedule that to be worked on after X is done". But these polls you can't really do that.

[Sy_Accursed]

 

So both the aggressive and the ironman poll were nearly 50/50. Strange thing about the ironman poll was that at the beginning there was a 10% favour for no bonus xp weekends, that slowly decreased to only a favour with 100 votes ahead... I am wondeirng if this is the case because of people making ironman accounts just so they can manipulate the vote...

 

 

Edit: Also I am wondering if jagex will just go for the winning option at both polls, while the outcomes of those polls are the options I choose I don't think it is fair to just go for the winning option... Because it is basic statistic knowledge that there is always an error in these votes (and thus it could be the other way around if there is only a small difference). Also even if you don't count for the error, it just doesn't seem fair to me to ignore the other 45%+ of the people.

 

The issue is for both of these polls, they're kind of exclusive. You either do this or you don't do this, little to no middle ground. So you either ignore the large group that lost the poll or you ignore the larger group that won the poll. 

 

With some of the other polls they could say "ok, X won so we'll do that first, but Y was incredibly close so we're going to schedule that to be worked on after X is done". But these polls you can't really do that.

 

 

But these polls also run the issue of why should marginally larger group Y get what they want when they are barely bigger than group X when what one group wants is directly detrimental to what the other wants.

 

On a poll like this I think the fairest course of action would be making it a personal setting: If you want the realism etc you can have it turned on. If you don't  leave it off.

[Arceus]

Of course in the wilderness a toggle like this could be abused :v, so they would need to be careful.

[Sy_Accursed]

But mobs are aggro in wildy anyway

[Arceus]

Ah alright, all of them?

[Steph]

Ah alright, all of them?

Are they o.o pretty sure I haven't been aggroed by anything but chaos ele and bandits

[Low Levelled]

Thugs are, moss giants are

[strilmus]

even the giant rats will pick fights with you

[V O R K]

 

Ah alright, all of them?

Are they o.o pretty sure I haven't been aggroed by anything but chaos ele and bandits

 

goddamn black uni gang and bears

->rek em everytime

[essiw]

 

 

So both the aggressive and the ironman poll were nearly 50/50. Strange thing about the ironman poll was that at the beginning there was a 10% favour for no bonus xp weekends, that slowly decreased to only a favour with 100 votes ahead... I am wondeirng if this is the case because of people making ironman accounts just so they can manipulate the vote...

 

 

Edit: Also I am wondering if jagex will just go for the winning option at both polls, while the outcomes of those polls are the options I choose I don't think it is fair to just go for the winning option... Because it is basic statistic knowledge that there is always an error in these votes (and thus it could be the other way around if there is only a small difference). Also even if you don't count for the error, it just doesn't seem fair to me to ignore the other 45%+ of the people.

 

The issue is for both of these polls, they're kind of exclusive. You either do this or you don't do this, little to no middle ground. So you either ignore the large group that lost the poll or you ignore the larger group that won the poll. 

 

With some of the other polls they could say "ok, X won so we'll do that first, but Y was incredibly close so we're going to schedule that to be worked on after X is done". But these polls you can't really do that.

 

 

But these polls also run the issue of why should marginally larger group Y get what they want when they are barely bigger than group X when what one group wants is directly detrimental to what the other wants.

 

On a poll like this I think the fairest course of action would be making it a personal setting: If you want the realism etc you can have it turned on. If you don't  leave it off.

 

While I agree with your first sentence, I don't agree with your second one. Making toggles for everything is just strange imo. Also a toggle for bonus XP weekends on ironman doesn't make sense. Also I think we may already have to many toggles... I personally see no reason to have a legacy toggle when you can use revolution, except for the legacy only world. Deleting this toggle (and make it world-dependent) would solve part of the pvp problems.

 

I think that on polls like these they should get feedback about why the disagreeing group doesn't want the change, then see if they can make a compromise (while also take into account why the agreeing group does want the change). For example with aggro monsters, lets say that the agreeing group (mostly) wants this to have the feeling of dangerous zones back, but the disagreeing group (mostly) doesn't want to have the change because of the monsters being AFK-able. The compromise would be to make them aggressive but not AFK-able.

 

Sure this cannot be done with everything, but people are quick to assume that nay- and yes-sayers have the same priorities in why they voted for something, which most of the times isn't the case.

[V O R K]

I'm still pro Multi/Solo zones AND the toggle.

 

Nobody should be able to be attacked by a gang when they use a teleportal, lever, other methods of getting into the wilderness...

 

Guess i'll write another wall of text for Mod Pi which he won't read and where two skillers vs a forum ruin it for the rest

 

sigh, boring

[Sy_Accursed]

I'm rather curious how exactly essiw would suggest you can some how make monsters aggro AND not afkable. They are polar opposites on the scale of monster behaviour - the only way for aggro and non-afk is they hit so much that you need to be there to eat.

 

Surely you wouldn't be suggesting a compromise would be making lots of basic slayer mobs so strong that you burn through food fighting them enough that you couldn't feasibly afk? I mean that would render them near impossible to kill for lower levels who still get assigned them for the sake of making higher levels unable to afk.

 

Also I'd say its rather ridiculous to suggest that they nay and yay sayers have the same priorities in the slightest or that anyone would assume such. By the mere fact of voting for the exact opposite thing it says without a doubt they have different priorities.

[Arceus]

I would be very surprised if 50% of RuneScape didn't want AFKable monsters. I think it's more like they don't want to get murdered running through certain areas. It just doesn't make sense why people would want to force making things more difficult on themselves.

[essiw]

I'm rather curious how exactly essiw would suggest you can some how make monsters aggro AND not afkable. They are polar opposites on the scale of monster behaviour - the only way for aggro and non-afk is they hit so much that you need to be there to eat.

 

Surely you wouldn't be suggesting a compromise would be making lots of basic slayer mobs so strong that you burn through food fighting them enough that you couldn't feasibly afk? I mean that would render them near impossible to kill for lower levels who still get assigned them for the sake of making higher levels unable to afk.

 

Also I'd say its rather ridiculous to suggest that they nay and yay sayers have the same priorities in the slightest or that anyone would assume such. By the mere fact of voting for the exact opposite thing it says without a doubt they have different priorities.

Well not to make them not afk-able, but make it so that afking doesn't give as much XP as not afk. I heard this is what they are already doing, by letting the monsters not instantly attack you but wait a short time.

[Kaur]

It just doesn't make sense why people would want to force making things more difficult on themselves.

 

Maybe we are tired of safescape and want the element of danger back in our games. You can't die, you can't lose items, nothing is dangerous, free stuff and exp is handed out left and right. You can leave your character logged in in the middle of a dangerous dungeon filled with scary and angry dragons and demons and nothing will happen. Everything wants to cuddle you and hold your hands. What the hell is the point? Why are dark evil wizards south of Varroc so scared of me? Why don't muggers want to mug me? Why aren't pirates trying to take over my treasures? Why is there nobody trying to kill me in the Wilderness when I wear a damn partyhat?

 

Join me for a group hug.

[Arceus]

 

It just doesn't make sense why people would want to force making things more difficult on themselves.

 

Maybe we are tired of safescape and want the element of danger back in our games. You can't die, you can't lose items, nothing is dangerous, free stuff and exp is handed out left and right. You can leave your character logged in in the middle of a dangerous dungeon filled with scary and angry dragons and demons and nothing will happen. Everything wants to cuddle you and hold your hands. What the hell is the point? Why are dark evil wizards south of Varroc so scared of me? Why don't muggers want to mug me? Why aren't pirates trying to take over my treasures? Why is there nobody trying to kill me in the Wilderness when I wear a damn partyhat?

 

Join me for a group hug.

 

We're just waiting for you to let your guard down! Hehehe. But I suppose you do raise a good point.