Dsy wrote:Its something like here: If you saw there was plenty discussion on starting crates for example. Its so radical that Japan with the best crates age up 15 sec faster.
Dsy wrote:Its something like here: If you saw there was plenty discussion on starting crates for example. Its so radical that Japan with the best crates age up 15 sec faster.
You mean 40-45 sec lol?
idk how this thread became about starting crates, but i'm always on board.
Technically i guess copy paste this line for all civs in data file. If thats all - its something like 5 minutes to do. Ofc until that you need balance since all civs losing RNG crates.
Dsy wrote:Btw who votes no? Since i read 2 pages of posts and everyone agreed. Its kinda weird.
two people with big voices threatened to stop playing
Yep. Arguing for fixed crates can also get you permanently banned
[spoiler=spoiler]Crooked Mod Edit[/spoiler]
Also I still believe that some guys smurfed to vote for "no" because GS said that he would go for it if the poll got more than 65%. iirc, some people also claimed that I smurfed to vote "yes", which is wrong.
It seems whole argument on No is basicly "we dont want AOE3 more competitive". But its kinda strange when there are so many competitive tournaments going and the whole community built on pvp stuffs. Argue me if you want but i dont see that point a valid...
Dsy wrote:It seems whole argument on No is basicly "we dont want AOE3 more competitive". But its kinda strange when there are so many competitive tournaments going and the whole community built on pvp stuffs. Argue me if you want but i dont see that point a valid...
Yea, that's basically the argument. Some people believe that the game would be less fun and standardized with fixed crates.
The public poll was 55-45 before diarouga made smurfs to "help" the yes votes, and that's with the OP making a case for the change. A good poll would have simply asked the question. There just wasn't nearly enough support in the end. Such a change should be supported by a clear majority.
But i find it kinda interesting. This voting stuffs overall. Maybe im wrong but in democracy we vote for leaders. Until that we cant vote for changes they planning to make (usually). Complaining is fine also be critical to them. Ask them to remove a change if we so strongly disagree. So my whole point if we would put all game changes plans to vote (and 55% means not pass) i doubt that any changes could happen at all.
Goodspeed wrote:The public poll was 55-45 before diarouga made smurfs to "help" the yes votes, and that's with the OP making a case for the change. A good poll would have simply asked the question. There just wasn't nearly enough support in the end. Such a change should be supported by a clear majority.
I didn't cheat. I still don't understand why you spread that fake information, you probably just didn't want to make the change. I think that the people who voted for "no" cheated however.
You literally told me you would cheat, and then the poll jumped from 55-45 to 60-40. And that's after I said I would only even consider the change if at least 60% was for. Let's just say I thought it was quite a coincidence.