Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi everybody,

I took the time to make a detailed Warhammer 40k survey, because I am very interested to see the state of mind within the Warhammer 40k community as a whole and not just wihtin my gaming circle.

Maybe you can take a few minutes, you might find some interesting questions; you never know, maybe GW might see the results and change things? :-)

http://goo.gl/forms/0mqa2zG0nS

best regards,
Bora

PS: you can see the survey results at any time: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Q3mp07LWw-Bz_hxksF08H0uYWSShcMeLPQFUDmBVEsY/viewanalytics?usp=form_confirm

"How would you rate the quality of GW miniatures?"
Scale is 1-5 where 1 is excellent.

I'm out!

Bora77 wrote:


Some interesting questions, you never know, maybe GW might see the results and change things?

Hell freezing over is more likely.

Suit yourself, difficult to formulate a survey so everybody is happy I suppose ;-)

Completed, I found it quite interesting., thanks.

Under age, seems the 12 year old brigade opinion is truely debunked (thank god) if this poll is representative.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Q3mp07LWw-Bz_hxksF08H0uYWSShcMeLPQFUDmBVEsY/viewanalytics?usp=form_confirm

The survey has been active for 2 hours now, there might be more <15 year olds, however if they take the survey is another question ;-)

Several of the questions are biased, making any data collected suspicious as to intent.

SJ

I can't complete the survey because I do not own the current rulebook or codex in any format.

Bora77 wrote:
The survey has been active for 2 hours now, there might be more <15 year olds, however if they take the survey is another question ;-)

Sub-15-year-olds would be in the middle of class right now.

 Purifier wrote:
"How would you rate the quality of GW miniatures?"
Scale is 1-5 where 1 is excellent.

I'm out!

Congratulations!

Perhaps you can offer constructive feedback instead of just pointing at things you don't like during your dramatic exit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Have you had any negative experiences telling people about 40k" was a confusing question. There was also no option for "They think I'm a nerd but I don't care because it's true".

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Several of the questions are biased, making any data collected suspicious as to intent.

SJ

The intend is clearly stated on the first page of the survey. I am a private person, a 40k player and fan.

Of course I am biased, nobody pays me to be neutral after all. I am one of the player base and I am asking questions that came out of my own head, so they cannot be neutral.

I want to know what others think and lots of others are interested in the results too...

If we get around 5-10k people to participate, I am sure GW as a serious business cannot afford to ignore the result either, so I will send it to them - for whatever they want to do with it.

If you have suggestions for improvements, please clarify - I can change the wording of the questions still, or take it into consideration for next years survey.

Completed. Figure more data of any kind is always good.

You could provide more neutral responses/not applicable options. As Kilkrazy pointed out, some options may not necessarily apply to everyone taking this, and other questions could use some clarification. Namely the question about 40k 'copies', which I'm assuming means 3rd party bit or model companies, like Mad Robot, Chapterhouse, or Vic Minis.

40k copies are recasts, I will change it to make it more easily understandable. Thanks for the hint.

Bora77 wrote:
40k copies are recasts, I will change it to make it more easily understandable. Thanks for the hint.

Oh...then I answered something wrong.

no problem, I dont think it will spoil the survey, but I already changed the wording to be very clear now

Okay, here's some suggestions:

#1 - Better described intent. All you've posted is that it's a fan-made survey. That's not an intent. You need to have a question that you're looking to answer, like "The intent of this survey is to determine the spending patterns of players who frequent online forums."

#2 - Instead of "which is your favourite or most played?" and then branching into secondary armies, perhaps start with "which would you consider your main army?". My favourite army is Tyranids. I'm currently playing most with Harlequins. My largest army is Orks. I'd consider Tyranids to be my main army.

#3 - For "how many points do you have?" you don't give a proper range. A range should have all values being equal. If it's "less than 1000", then the next range should be "1000 - 1999", followed by "2000 - 2999", etc. You shouldn't just jump up in army size.

#4 - While asking how much time is invested into painting is appropriate, the question asking how well their painted isn't done very well. What I considered "high quality", someone else may consider "tabletop standard". These need to be defined better? I like "studio quality", but even that may not be clear. First ask "What quality do you paint your miniatures to?", as at any time some of my army is very well painted, while others are in an unpainted or mid-painted state. Answer with something definite like "codex-picture quality", "nearly codex-picture quality", "painted, but not highlighted", "barely painted", "unpainted".

#5 - You only set it up so that those who pick "pro painted - studio" quality were asked the question on painting commissions. You need a question which asks if someone has their army painted for them. The "professionally painted (studio)" quality sounds like a quality standard, and not that you had someone paint them for you. I have painted a Gazzy model up to studio quality, but that was me that painted it - not a studio. Then these questions would make sense. At the time of writing this, only 5 people have responded that they had their armies pro painted. The fact that 3 of them have said "very cheap" for the cost probably means they painted it themselves, and the 50/50 split on the question (only 4 respondents - also telling) as to why is likely a result of the respondents being confused with the question.

#6 - You listed amount of money spent in Euro's. I did a conversion, but you should probably list this in terms of "frequency of purchases", and then another question for "average purchase size", using "number of kits/codexes" as the defining metric.

#7 - As already stated "copies" of miniatures isn't very descriptive. I took this to mean buying from non-GW sources who produced their own models, including models people have tried to 3-d print and sell.

#8 - You should distinguish that a purchased electronic dataslate/codex is different from a downloaded one (one being legal, a downloaded one not, and a copied one yes so long as you're the one who copied it). Also, there was no option for "no, I don't own all the rules for my army".

#9 - Again, when it comes to purchases of other wargames/hobbies, you should specify the amounts without referring to Euros.

#10 - For the questions about GW policies, having "the way it is now" is not very specific. What does that means? Personally, I prefer stores having everything I need, but I fully understand them not being able to carry everything. Is "the way it is now" mean there's no buyer incentives, or maybe there's some I'm not aware of?

I find it interesting that the majority are (generally) very pleased with the standard of the miniatures but at the same time, the almost exact amount of people find think there's very little value for the money.

 Zewrath wrote:
I find it interesting that the majority are (generally) very pleased with the standard of the miniatures but at the same time, the almost exact amount of people find think there's very little value for the money.

Liking the miniatures and thinking the value is off are two very different things.

Interesting. I took it. Feel pretty good about it.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:
I find it interesting that the majority are (generally) very pleased with the standard of the miniatures but at the same time, the almost exact amount of people find think there's very little value for the money.

Liking the miniatures and thinking the value is off are two very different things.

Not saying that it isn't, I'm saying that it's interesting. That's two very different things.

 Yarium wrote:
Okay, here's some suggestions:

#1 - Better described intent. All you've posted is that it's a fan-made survey. That's not an intent. You need to have a question that you're looking to answer, like "The intent of this survey is to determine the spending patterns of players who frequent online forums."

The itent is not in the survey itself but in the forum post/facebook and other places directing to it. But yes you are right and I didnt think of it before in such detail.

 Yarium wrote:

#2 - Instead of "which is your favourite or most played?" and then branching into secondary armies, perhaps start with "which would you consider your main army?". My favourite army is Tyranids. I'm currently playing most with Harlequins. My largest army is Orks. I'd consider Tyranids to be my main army.

this has been criticized by many, its on my todo, if I ever do it again. :-)

 Yarium wrote:

#3 - For "how many points do you have?" you don't give a proper range. A range should have all values being equal. If it's "less than 1000", then the next range should be "1000 - 1999", followed by "2000 - 2999", etc. You shouldn't just jump up in army size.

Sorry I cannot follow, isn't that exactly how it is now?

 Yarium wrote:

#4 - While asking how much time is invested into painting is appropriate, the question asking how well their painted isn't done very well. What I considered "high quality", someone else may consider "tabletop standard". These need to be defined better? I like "studio quality", but even that may not be clear. First ask "What quality do you paint your miniatures to?", as at any time some of my army is very well painted, while others are in an unpainted or mid-painted state. Answer with something definite like "codex-picture quality", "nearly codex-picture quality", "painted, but not highlighted", "barely painted", "unpainted".

#5 - You only set it up so that those who pick "pro painted - studio" quality were asked the question on painting commissions. You need a question which asks if someone has their army painted for them. The "professionally painted (studio)" quality sounds like a quality standard, and not that you had someone paint them for you. I have painted a Gazzy model up to studio quality, but that was me that painted it - not a studio. Then these questions would make sense. At the time of writing this, only 5 people have responded that they had their armies pro painted. The fact that 3 of them have said "very cheap" for the cost probably means they painted it themselves, and the 50/50 split on the question (only 4 respondents - also telling) as to why is likely a result of the respondents being confused with the question.

This is correct, need to improve on my next survey, thanks.

 Yarium wrote:

#6 - You listed amount of money spent in Euro's. I did a conversion, but you should probably list this in terms of "frequency of purchases", and then another question for "average purchase size", using "number of kits/codexes" as the defining metric.

here I do not agree, I am interested in absolute numbers - number of kits etc. is no indicator for ho wmuch the average wargamer spends really. Doing the math between EUR and USD is not that difficult, I agree it is not optimal, but the forms software doesnt let me enter currencies unfortunately.

 Yarium wrote:

#7 - As already stated "copies" of miniatures isn't very descriptive. I took this to mean buying from non-GW sources who produced their own models, including models people have tried to 3-d print and sell.

Fixed this already. Seems clear to me, but then again I am not a native English speaker, so I guess "copies" was not clear enough, so I change dit. Thanks.

 Yarium wrote:

#8 - You should distinguish that a purchased electronic dataslate/codex is different from a downloaded one (one being legal, a downloaded one not, and a copied one yes so long as you're the one who copied it). Also, there was no option for "no, I don't own all the rules for my army".

I believe the distinction as it is now is ok. I already added the option for no current rules - that was also mentioned by others.

 Yarium wrote:

#9 - Again, when it comes to purchases of other wargames/hobbies, you should specify the amounts without referring to Euros.

see above.

 Yarium wrote:

#10 - For the questions about GW policies, having "the way it is now" is not very specific. What does that means? Personally, I prefer stores having everything I need, but I fully understand them not being able to carry everything. Is "the way it is now" mean there's no buyer incentives, or maybe there's some I'm not aware of?

This is actually described in detail in the form itself. I always describe the current way things are handled by GW - this description field is sadly not displayed in the result view however.

Thanks for your input!

Bora77 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

#3 - For "how many points do you have?" you don't give a proper range. A range should have all values being equal. If it's "less than 1000", then the next range should be "1000 - 1999", followed by "2000 - 2999", etc. You shouldn't just jump up in army size.

Sorry I cannot follow, isn't that exactly how it is now?

So currently you have:

20,000+
10,000 - 19,999
6,000 - 9,999
3,000 - 5,999
1,500 - 2,999
1,000 - 1,499
below 1,000

When a range in a survey should be:

less than 1,000
1,000 - 1,999
2,000 - 2,999
3,000 - 3,999
4,000 - 4,999
(etc.)

The difference between the highest value and lower value at each point in each bracket should be the same. You go from 0-1000, then up only 500, then up 1500, then up 3000, 4000, then 10000. I'd suggest increments of 1500 points (<1500-3000-4500-6000-7500+).

Bora77 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

#6 - You listed amount of money spent in Euro's. I did a conversion, but you should probably list this in terms of "frequency of purchases", and then another question for "average purchase size", using "number of kits/codexes" as the defining metric.

here I do not agree, I am interested in absolute numbers - number of kits etc. is no indicator for how much the average wargamer spends really. Doing the math between EUR and USD is not that difficult, I agree it is not optimal, but the forms software doesnt let me enter currencies unfortunately.

If you needed absolute numbers, this wouldn't be a fan survey . You can definitely ask people to do the math, but when making a survey every point where something can be confused is another point where the results cannot be trusted. If I answered with Canadian funds, my number would be much higher, and if I didn't deduce that EUR meant Euro (even though that's the commonly accepted abbreviation), or if I didn't know how to convert it, this could have caused issues. An average number of purchases per month, and an average purchase size, still gives you a very useful number for statistical purposes. It also lets people adjust their answer based on their current situation if things have recently changed for them, which may even give a more accurate result.

This is why most professional surveys ask "how much do you plan to spend on X within the next Y time period?"


Glad to be of help!

 Zewrath wrote:


Not saying that it isn't, I'm saying that it's interesting. That's two very different things.

I kind of expected there to be a large number of people who liked the minis, but felt the prices didn't match the content.

If these forums are anything to go by, its a pretty popular opinion.

I'm flabergasted at how many people think that 40k's rule set is logical.

Must be some strange usage of the word logical that I've not previously been aware of.

Skriker

Was going to fill it in, but abandoned most of the way through as there was nothing in regards to FW or FW armies...

Even though the OP said it was aimed at possibly influencing GW?
FW arent being aimed at here.....

 Ratius wrote:
Even though the OP said it was aimed at possibly influencing GW?
FW arent being aimed at here.....

But, they're the same company. The thread title specifically says Warhammer 40k. I expected at least the odd FW question here and there...

Can't complete survey as my residence is not listed at all.

http://worldmapswithout.nz/


Also, quite a few questions where my best choice of answer doesn't cover exactly how I feel, e.g. I think D10 would cover the races and variations of 40k more accurately, but D6 are plentiful and convienient and I think 40k is really a game that benefits from that.

 Ratius wrote:
Even though the OP said it was aimed at possibly influencing GW?
FW arent being aimed at here.....

FW = GW