Perhaps ignoring wasn't the right word for me to use, "misinterpreting" would probably be more appropriate.
If we look at your statements A-C, only B has a direct equivalent in your poll: "Mission chains that have already been started should continue to offer the old rewards."
Given an open choice of any or all of the statements in the poll, 41.33% chose that option. That means that 58.67% specifically chose not to, which means a majority of people do not agree with statement B.
Statement A is not reflected at all by any of the options in the poll. Statement C doesn't have a direct equivalent but is probably most closely related to the option "Players should be given a realistic time span to collect all the attribute rewards if wanted" which was chosen by 37.33% or respondents, meaning that 62.67% disagree with this.
If you use the word "unreservedly" then obviously you aren't going to get too many people choosing that. Given the wording I think that 21.33% is rather high.
If we add the 30.67% who chose "I require more information before I can be sure that I am happy about all this" (noting that these two opinions are mutually exclusive), we can see that 52% of people are not unhappy about the proposed changes (at least not yet). We also have 33.33% who chose "I am happy if noob missions, specifically, will be rewarded with skills not attributes" and 50.67% who chose "am happy that frags and tokens will be replaced with skills", reflecting a generally more positive attitude than you are indicating. We don't know what the level of crossover was between those options and the two positive options I mentioned above, so we can't be sure how many of those we can add to the 52%.
I haven't drafted a petition because I don't feel there is any need for one. I'm basically happy with the changes (as far as we know about them). If anything I would prefer them to be implemented sooner, but I'm not going to petition anyone to do that because it's just my opinion and is probably not representative of everyone's view.
Generally I think people are OK with it now, after the initial negative reaction immediately following the original accouncement, which is inevitable in such circumstances.
I hope my analysis is constructive enough for you now.
Thanks Oleg, that really is a lot more like it.
Of course you have to consider that
no option received more than 47.50% votes (present figure) If you take that as a vote AGAINST the option in every instance that makes total nonsense of the entire poll.
I'm sure its more a case of people being more selective than they needed to be. Eg choosing their favourite option rather than all of the acceptable options. So if a figure is high relative to that 47.50% then it needs to be taken seriously.
Re, the lack of an option that directly corresponds to option A: I addressed this problem in my OP in the Poll thread:
my own proposition is as follows:
[INSERT OPTION A, in QUOTES]
there was not room to squeeze all this into the poll though (100 character limit)so had to settle for "Players should be given a realistic time span..."
No I'm, not assuming that all who checked that box had read my footnote and meat to vote for option A; no more that I assume that all who didn't check that box were voting against option A.
Of the critical options, the one that's getting by far most votes is:
I do think the changes need to be implemented very carefully, with more regard for existing players
( 47.37% at present)
I am therefore taking this view (along with "happy about frags being replaced") to be representative. The next question then becomes, what do people want MA to do about it? The idea that they don't want MA to do anything about it (they'd sooner keep their grudge?) is just plain silly.
Considering the answers given, it seemed very clear to me that option A would satisfy more people, than the other presented options would, since it gives the individual a choice, thus covering more than one view at a single stroke. The fact that nobody has suggested modifying it justifies that conclusion.
I mean,
people have either found the pettion, as worded, acceptable in entirety, or else (like you) unacceptable in entirety, because they don't want a petition at all. So I gather that I had a surprising degree of success re. interpreting the poll responses and representing the majority view. I really expected some people would quibble with the details, but they did not.
Re. your suggestion that most players are happy because they checked
"
am happy that frags and tokens will be replaced with skills . "
Well, I checked that option myself, so I know damned well that it doesn't mean that I think the petition unnecessary. The point there is : credit where its due! A lot of the changes are indeed very welcome. But there's no need to screw over those players who already invested in the system as it is when they implement the changes. As MA have now clearly recognised!
Oh,
was halfway though writing this (in OpenOffice) when I saw your comment about MA “caving in to the whining minority”, but I gritted my teeth and continued as planned. Well, well, well. If you view some highly constructive criticism of MA's proposals as “whining” then I wonder what that makes your response? Seriously,
you look like the whining minority on this thread
jay