Poll and thread title are self-explanatory.

On dakka, you see both extremes. You have people, on the one hand, who seem to talk as though nothing is wrong with the game...and at least some of those people play eldar...and other people seem to think that the game is complete garbage. I'm wondering what the actual common opinion is.

Hmm. Let's see. I have great ruleset(2nd ed) and plenty of existing models to play with. Only issue I have is new models cost too much to be worth it so I'm on shortage of new models to buy.

Though new model releases have been suffering from scale creep in terms of new releases being systematically big center piece models and special units which leaves me tad cold. Give me new plastic chaos marines over Magnus!

Rulewise yes, model quality wise decent, price wise no.

tneva82 wrote:
Hmm. Let's see. I have great ruleset(2nd ed) and plenty of existing models to play with. Only issue I have is new models cost too much to be worth it so I'm on shortage of new models to buy.

Though new model releases have been suffering from scale creep in terms of new releases being systematically big center piece models and special units which leaves me tad cold. Give me new plastic chaos marines over Magnus!

Rulewise yes, model quality wise decent, price wise no.

I'm confused. You wrote "2nd ed."

When I said "current state of 40k," I meant 7th ed.

Did you write 2nd ed by mistake, or have you been playing the older edition?

Quit playing, now writing my own, entirely different game for 40k to make a ruleset that isn't fraught with random chances and pointless busy work, which are the two problems I have with 40k right now.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Quit playing, now writing my own, entirely different game for 40k to make a ruleset that isn't fraught with random chances and pointless busy work, which are the two problems I have with 40k right now.

What do you mean by pointless busy work?

It's ok. There are some problems but it's playable. Ork player here.

Where's the option: "I like 40K and hope it continues to improve" ?

morgoth wrote:
Where's the option: "I like 40K and hope it continues to improve" ?

Are you satisfied or not satisfied? If you're satisfied, then the last option. If you're satisfied but want it to be even more "awesome," then still last option.

Caught between a few points there.

Ended up quitting shortly after the release of 6th ed, due to the rules being absolutely horrendous garbage and the (long time coming) implosion of a gaming group. Recently been considering coming back due to interest in killteam and a revived local community.

But taking a look at the massive glut of rules, and the quality of those rules, has me very worried about what I'm considering getting into. Things look an absolute mess. I can only hope that the shortly arriving 8th edition presents a serious turnaround in the direction of the game's design, because a lot of it looks horrid just from a glance.

Alternatively, I wouldn't mind going back to a modified 5th edition. Hell, even 3rd wouldn't be bad.

I am fairly satisfied with 40k but I wouldn't use a more positive adjective than that. The game is great fun but the difference in capability, points cost and attention given to the "haves and have nots" I find very disappointing and often dampens my enthusiasm considerably.

 Fafnir wrote:
Caught between a few points there.

Ended up quitting shortly after the release of 6th ed, due to the rules being absolutely horrendous garbage and the (long time coming) implosion of a gaming group. Recently been considering coming back due to interest in killteam and a revived local community.

But taking a look at the massive glut of rules, and the quality of those rules, has me very worried about what I'm considering getting into. Things look an absolute mess. I can only hope that the shortly arriving 8th edition presents a serious turnaround in the direction of the game's design, because a lot of it looks horrid just from a glance.

Alternatively, I wouldn't mind going back to a modified 5th edition. Hell, even 3rd wouldn't be bad.

If you thought 6th was bad, 7th is worse, at least, balance-wise.

 Traditio wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Where's the option: "I like 40K and hope it continues to improve" ?

Are you satisfied or not satisfied? If you're satisfied, then the last option. If you're satisfied but want it to be even more "awesome," then still last option.

I believe the whole wording is poor and terrible.

The voting options only make it worse.

How can people who don't even play 40K be satisfied or disatisfied with the current state of 40k which they don't even experience?
Why are there three options for dissatisfied and just a single state of "dissatisfied"?
What do you believe the word "dissatisfied" means?

 Traditio wrote:
What do you mean by pointless busy work?

It's all the tiny rules scattered across the game that you'll forget because they ultimately make no difference, such as Warlord Traits. Sometimes they work out, and I get their point, but it's yet another dice roll I have to do. Then you have to do Psychic Powers, Difficult and Dangerous Terrain, rolling to Wound, rolling for Saves; everything has a random chance roll that you have to waste time on.

Other times it will be overcomplications such as during the Assault Phase, with things like Pile In Moves, Challenges, even calculating WS to hit rolls. The individual rules make sense, but there's no coherency to them that either makes them satisfying to play or worth doing, or both.

I don't want an overly simple game. Equally though, a game where every aspect you can think of has been awkwardly jammed in doesn't make for a good experience either. Gameplay should flow easily, and from my experience, it doesn't in 40k.

 Traditio wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Hmm. Let's see. I have great ruleset(2nd ed) and plenty of existing models to play with. Only issue I have is new models cost too much to be worth it so I'm on shortage of new models to buy.

Though new model releases have been suffering from scale creep in terms of new releases being systematically big center piece models and special units which leaves me tad cold. Give me new plastic chaos marines over Magnus!

Rulewise yes, model quality wise decent, price wise no.

I'm confused. You wrote "2nd ed."

When I said "current state of 40k," I meant 7th ed.

Did you write 2nd ed by mistake, or have you been playing the older edition?

Define current state? For us it's obviously what we are playing _right now_. Which means 2nd ed. For us 7th ed is old news.

True my answer might not be what you were looking since you were probably more interested in 7th ed but gave my opinion anyway which is _rulewise_ it's currently best we have ever had now for us. But that's because we are using 2nd ed(with some tweaks).

morgoth wrote:
Where's the option: "I like 40K and hope it continues to improve" ?

The only way is up. I'm not too sure how 40k could get worse.

morgoth wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Where's the option: "I like 40K and hope it continues to improve" ?

Are you satisfied or not satisfied? If you're satisfied, then the last option. If you're satisfied but want it to be even more "awesome," then still last option.

I believe the whole wording is poor and terrible.

The voting options only make it worse.

How can people who don't even play 40K be satisfied or disatisfied with the current state of 40k which they don't even experience?
Why are there three options for dissatisfied and just a single state of "dissatisfied"?
What do you believe the word "dissatisfied" means?

Which army do you play?

This poll definitely needs more options for 'satisfied', like 'I'm satisfied with the game but I believe some points could be improved'. Wanting the game to improve does not immediately equate to not being satisfied with it, in my opinion.

I mean, as it stands, you can pretty much predict the outcome. If 3/4 of your options are 'I'm not satisfied with the game', chances are good that the end result will read as 'most people are not satisfied with the game'.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
This poll definitely needs more options for 'satisfied', like 'I'm satisfied with the game but I believe some points could be improved'. Wanting the game to improve does not immediately equate to not being satisfied with it, in my opinion.

If you're satisfied with the game, but believe some points could be improved, then you're satisfied with the game.

 Traditio wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
This poll definitely needs more options for 'satisfied', like 'I'm satisfied with the game but I believe some points could be improved'. Wanting the game to improve does not immediately equate to not being satisfied with it, in my opinion.

If you're satisfied with the game, but believe some points could be improved, then you're satisfied with the game.

What we know for sure is that we're dissatisfied with your poll.

40k would be better if the Emperor died, Abbaddon took over Terra, and then the Tau began their ascendancy over the ashes of the Imperium with Eldar support...until the Tyrranids ate everyone.

morgoth wrote:

What we know for sure is that we're dissatisfied with your poll.

we need a poll for that.

 kronk wrote:
40k would be better if the Emperor died, Abbaddon took over Terra, and then the Tau began their ascendancy over the ashes of the Imperium with Eldar support...until the Tyrranids ate everyone.

40K would be better if they threw out 'forge the narrative' and wrote decent rules...

 don_mondo wrote:

 kronk wrote:
40k would be better if the Emperor died, Abbaddon took over Terra, and then the Tau began their ascendancy over the ashes of the Imperium with Eldar support...until the Tyrranids ate everyone.

40K would be better if they threw out 'forge the narrative' and wrote decent rules...

I'm fine with a complete reboot. I'd have to buy all new codecies, but so be it. It's my Imperial Armor collection I would pine for. Obsoleted in one fell swoop!

I voted number 3, 'I am not satisfied with the current state of 40k, but not dissatisfied enough to consider quitting.'
It's a mess of a game but there's definitely something that keeps me playing.

Eh, i think its in a bad place right now, but its not gonna stop me from playing.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Eh, i think its in a bad place right now, but its not gonna stop me from playing.

What are the aspects of the game that give you the greatest dissatisfaction?

I haven't played since 5th Edition - some 7 or so years ago. I quit when I moved abroad to South Korea (not due to the state of the game which was very fun), but since returning to the hobby (and the U.K.) in 2014 it's been AoS that has drawn my attention.

I am looking for a way to jump into 40k and will play my first Inq28 style games this weekend with the GSC I have been painting but I am still unwilling to take the plunge fully into 40k until the new edition comes. The rules barrier seems incredibly high for me and I really hope for a lot of AoSification with 8th. Both with streamlining (doesn't have to be so extreme) and more importantly availability of rules. I want the new rulebook to retail at £15 to rival the General's Handbook and I want basic rules for all units to be free (like the Warscrolls are). I will happily buy codexes for fluff and formation rules for my favourite armies if the rest of the rules are cheap.

Lastly, I want them to borrow heavily from the AoS Pitched Battle scenarios. When I see people play Maelstrom in the local GW it just looks like a un-fun mess with no strategy. I want tight, well written objective based scenarios that encourage TAC lists like the GHB Pitched Battle scenarios.

 kronk wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

 kronk wrote:
40k would be better if the Emperor died, Abbaddon took over Terra, and then the Tau began their ascendancy over the ashes of the Imperium with Eldar support...until the Tyrranids ate everyone.

40K would be better if they threw out 'forge the narrative' and wrote decent rules...

I'm fine with a complete reboot. I'd have to buy all new codecies, but so be it. It's my Imperial Armor collection I would pine for. Obsoleted in one fell swoop!

Been through it before (complete reboot, that is) when 3rd came out. Rulebook included mini-codexes for the armies to get you through until they released a new codex.

 koooaei wrote:
It's ok. There are some problems but it's playable. Ork player here.

What are the most noticeable problems, in your opinion?

I cannot vote on the poll but here is my answer:

I am not satisfied with current state of 40k and it giving me apprehension to start playing.

The game is fun but the codex balance and the amount of broken (as in overpowered) stuff is getting out of hand. GW may have some of the best miniatures in the industry but they have some of the worst rules writers. Granted I understand players are going to find ways to break the game balance or discover loopholes to exploit but the amount of obviously unbalanced things GW produces makes me wonder how little quality control goes into GW's rules and how disconnected GW is with how their game is played. The fluff, models, and the basic gameplay are what make 40k fun in spite of the game's terrible balance.

I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

Why did you make a yes/no poll with 4 answers and 3 are no?

There's far too much stuff to keep track of, that stuff is far too incoherently organized, it's far more unbalanced than in any previous editions (which is saying something), new concepts are increasingly either absurd or uninteresting (e.g. Taurox, Logan Claus, Chibby flyers, etc), and the game is quite frankly a gigantic mess to organize and play with someone you're not already a close like-minded gaming pal with. I've begun selling off armies and there's precious little gaming to be had.

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

There should be an option which is:

I am satisfied with the current state but would like to see continued evolution in the game.

I voted satisfied.

That said, games workshop should do more rigorous playtesting for the competitive community, and they should publish an errata for free which has updated tournament point costs, or rule changes, which could be constantly evolving. You don't need an entirely new codex to increase the points cost of the Wraithknight, for instance.

 Marmatag wrote:
There should be an option which is:

I am satisfied with the current state but would like to see continued evolution in the game.

I voted satisfied.

That said, games workshop should do more rigorous playtesting for the competitive community, and they should publish an errata for free which has updated tournament point costs, or rule changes, which could be constantly evolving. You don't need an entirely new codex to increase the points cost of the Wraithknight, for instance.

QFT.

But the OP only wants to hear "I'm disatisfied with 40K", so there are three options with that, the fourth being "I'm satisfied and have nothing else to say".

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

Looking at the results as they are at the moment, I'd say that the 'satisfied but would like to see improvement'-people mostly went with option 3, as that option can be read as such. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to change option 3's wording or add another 'satisfied' option.

I've quit playing, relative to playing nearly every weekend. I haven't played in over 6 months, and am only passing interested in having a game because I miss playing "something" other than video games.

I'm also in the process of making my own, home-brew rules for 40k to see if I can renew my group's interest in playing 40k [like] again.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Looking at the results as they are at the moment, I'd say that the 'satisfied but would like to see improvement'-people mostly went with option 3, as that option can be read as such. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to change option 3's wording or add another 'satisfied' option.

But that would mean the poll might not lean in the OP's favor. We can't have that.

The poll, just like all previous polls, are designed specifically for the OP to self-affirm their bias. Everyone agrees, don't you see? Because if you don't, you're wrong.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

I would like to point out that many other games dont have this issue, or at least not to anythimg near the degree 40k does, and that divide is a creation of the rules. You can also have two perfectly fluffy armies played by casual players that are grossly mismatched in ppwer level.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

There is no mindset that makes Eldar fair for BA.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

I would like to point out that many other games dont have this issue, or at least not to anythimg near the degree 40k does, and that divide is a creation of the rules. You can also have two perfectly fluffy armies played by casual players that are grossly mismatched in ppwer level.

I disagree. I find that the casual mindset clashes and doesn't have fun against the competitive in pretty much every game. Those different players just have different goals and objectives when playing games. The only differene for 40k is the massive inbalance makes the casual player very likely to lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

There is no mindset that makes Eldar fair for BA.

A Power Gamer wouldn't be playing Blood Angels

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

I would like to point out that many other games dont have this issue, or at least not to anythimg near the degree 40k does, and that divide is a creation of the rules. You can also have two perfectly fluffy armies played by casual players that are grossly mismatched in ppwer level.

Probably because the vast majority of other games don't have a community so large and old.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Looking at the results as they are at the moment, I'd say that the 'satisfied but would like to see improvement'-people mostly went with option 3, as that option can be read as such. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to change option 3's wording or add another 'satisfied' option.

"Satisfied but want improvement" falls under the fourth option.

Option three is "Dissatisfied, but not so dissatisfied that I'm on the verge of quitting."

Think Blight Town in Dark Souls.

Currently, the poll is roughly 70 percent of respondents saying that they are not happy about the current state of the game.

As someone who plays IG, Skitarii (non war con), and non grav spam space marines I can say Im actually really happy with 40k. But the biggest reason is because I have a small group who all loves playing together, we only bring cheese when we think it could be funny to see what happens and we generally play whatever we want. Plus with all the new content coming out its been the most refreshing in my 10 years playing to be playing right now. Sure some rules aren't great at the moment, but it doesn't have to make it any less fun with good people and good models.

morgoth wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

I would like to point out that many other games dont have this issue, or at least not to anythimg near the degree 40k does, and that divide is a creation of the rules. You can also have two perfectly fluffy armies played by casual players that are grossly mismatched in ppwer level.

Probably because the vast majority of other games don't have a community so large and old.

The problem has little to do with the age of 40k though, but GW's consistent and awful execution of bad ideas and then doubling down, mostly because they dont consider themselves a game company, they say as much to their shareholders, they are a model company selling a premium hobby sculpture line, not a game studio, despite the name. Rules are not playtested, FAQ comes years into an edition, Errata is not done, its all just a vehicle to push kit sales.

Other games are very old and have tons of material. Battletech for instance probably has even more units than 40k does and at least as much ink. It has issues, but nothing like 40k has.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Looking at the results as they are at the moment, I'd say that the 'satisfied but would like to see improvement'-people mostly went with option 3, as that option can be read as such. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to change option 3's wording or add another 'satisfied' option.

But that would mean the poll might not lean in the OP's favor. We can't have that.

The poll, just like all previous polls, are designed specifically for the OP to self-affirm their bias. Everyone agrees, don't you see? Because if you don't, you're wrong.

This is so asinine!

The fact that there are three "no" answers and one "yes" answer is not in and of itself a bias in favor of a no answer. If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game" isn't going to magically make you click on a "no, I am not satisfied" option.

If I put up a poll question asking: "When is the last time you beat your wife," had 9 answers affirming that the respondent had beaten his wife, and only had one answer saying "I've never beaten my wife," what percent of people do you think would select the "no" answer?

Already quit. But it's less because of the rules, and more because of the lack of plastic Sisters of Battle, and not being able to really justify buying minis on the budget I have.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem has little to do with the age of 40k though, but GW's consistent and awful execution of bad ideas and then doubling down, mostly because they dont consider themselves a game company, they say as much to their shareholders, they are a model company selling a premium hobby sculpture line, not a game studio, despite the name. Rules are not playtested, FAQ comes years into an edition, Errata is not done, its all just a vehicle to push kit sales.

Other games are very old and have tons of material. Battletech for instance probably has even more units than 40k does and at least as much ink. It has issues, but nothing like 40k has.

How could you know ?
How could anyone know ?
How many companies do you know of with a history comparable to GW's and a fanbase so wide for so long ?

Maybe some of it comes down to specifics of being a market opener, market leader, market idiot for a while, then turning around.

 Traditio wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Looking at the results as they are at the moment, I'd say that the 'satisfied but would like to see improvement'-people mostly went with option 3, as that option can be read as such. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to change option 3's wording or add another 'satisfied' option.

But that would mean the poll might not lean in the OP's favor. We can't have that.

The poll, just like all previous polls, are designed specifically for the OP to self-affirm their bias. Everyone agrees, don't you see? Because if you don't, you're wrong.

This is so asinine!

The fact that there are three "no" answers and one "yes" answer is not in and of itself a bias in favor of a no answer. If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game" isn't going to magically make you click on a "no, I am not satisfied" option.

If I put up a poll question asking: "When is the last time you beat your wife," had 9 answers affirming that the respondent had beaten his wife, and only had one answer saying "I've never beaten my wife," what percent of people do you think would select the "no" answer?

You can be satisfied but not totally satisfied.

Have you ever seen a survey like this:

How satisfied are you with (service)?

1 - Not at all satisfied
2 - Unsatisfied
3 - Mostly not satisfied
4 - Totally and completely satisfied

Marmatag wrote:You can be satisfied but not totally satisfied.

Does the poll option say "totally satisfied?" No. It just says "satisfied." IoW: "No complaints serious enough to merit my selecting one of the other options. Good enough."

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Eh, i think its in a bad place right now, but its not gonna stop me from playing.

What are the aspects of the game that give you the greatest dissatisfaction?

The fact that the standard game follows the apoc template
formations not being taxed
super heavies and GMC
D in standard games
The crap storm that is the psyker phase

I just wish the price matched the actual value of the material used, I know the use high quality plastic however the total price of making a space marine commander cant be over 5-15 USD yet it costs 34 USD A PIECE!

the rules are hard to manage too, but I just picked out the ones I needed for my personal army and mostly ignore the rest. so in total I made my own mini-codex thats about 30 pages long with every rule needed for my army to play. and thats my problem with the game...

In my opinion the BEST thing that they could do is put the rules required to play the models you bought in the box with the instructions.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Eh, i think its in a bad place right now, but its not gonna stop me from playing.

What are the aspects of the game that give you the greatest dissatisfaction?

The fact that the standard game follows the apoc template
formations not being taxed
super heavies and GMC
D in standard games
The crap storm that is the psyker phase

...

...

...Really?

I was under the impression that you had previously disagreed with me about some of those things in the past?

 Traditio wrote:
If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game"...

This is false though. As someone already pointed out there is more to say then just "I'm satisfied" such as "I'm satisfied but I'd like the game to be better" or "I'm satisfied but my gaming group isn't".

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Eh, i think its in a bad place right now, but its not gonna stop me from playing.

What are the aspects of the game that give you the greatest dissatisfaction?

The fact that the standard game follows the apoc template
formations not being taxed
super heavies and GMC
D in standard games
The crap storm that is the psyker phase

...

...

...Really?

I was under the impression that you had previously disagreed with me about some of those things in the past?

Which ones? For some time now i have been a preponderant of removing some of these things, again only in sub 2k, or sub 1.85k game. Once you hit either 1850 or 2k, i think at that point your reaching the point of they become acceptable.

That said, i still favor the idea that no single unit can make up 25% of the total armies value.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game"...

This is false though. As someone already pointed out there is more to say then just "I'm satisfied" such as "I'm satisfied but I'd like the game to be better" or "I'm satisfied but my gaming group isn't".

Learn 2 logic.

Logically speaking, "but" just means "and." So if you're saying "I'm satisfied, but I'd like the game to be better," what you are saying is:

1. I am satisfied

AND

2. I would like the game to be better

If you're saying "I'm satisfied, but my gaming group isn't," what you're saying is:

1. I am satisfied

AND

2. My gaming group is not satisfied.

Note that in both of those instances, you are saying that you are, in fact, satisfied. Therefore, the fourth poll option is for you.

This isn't fething rocket science.

Thread derail in 5...4...3...2...1...

Here, we....go.

Traditio wrote:

"Satisfied but want improvement" falls under the fourth option.

Option three is "Dissatisfied, but not so dissatisfied that I'm on the verge of quitting.".

Currently, the poll is roughly 70 percent of respondents saying that they are not happy about the current state of the game.

Traditio wrote:
The fact that there are three "no" answers and one "yes" answer is not in and of itself a bias in favor of a no answer. If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game" isn't going to magically make you click on a "no, I am not satisfied" option.

And this (the bolded part) is exactly why I argued for a second 'satisfied' option in the first place. The fourth option is completely devoid of any nuance, which means that everyone in the 'satisfied but not 100%' is automatically not going to choose that option. Instead, they probably went for the third option, which could easily be re-worded as "I am satisfied with the game but would like to see changes" and the votes would (probably) still be (largely) the same.

If we would count the third option as a positive rather than a negative, the results would clearly show that people are generally happy with the game as it is, although a majority would like to see some elements changed.

 Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game"...

This is false though. As someone already pointed out there is more to say then just "I'm satisfied" such as "I'm satisfied but I'd like the game to be better" or "I'm satisfied but my gaming group isn't".

Learn 2 logic.

Logically speaking, "but" just means "and." So if you're saying "I'm satisfied, but I'd like the game to be better," what you are saying is:

1. I am satisfied

AND

2. I would like the game to be better

If you're saying "I'm satisfied, but my gaming group isn't," what you're saying is:

1. I am satisfied

AND

2. My gaming group is not satisfied.

Note that in both of those instances, you are saying that you are, in fact, satisfied. Therefore, the fourth poll option is for you.

This isn't fething rocket science.

Then why have more than one option for Dissatisfied?

 Traditio wrote:

Learn 2 logic.

This isn't fething rocket science.

Why do people participate in Traditio threads?

Ezra Tyrius wrote:And this (the bolded part) is exactly why I argued for a second 'satisfied' option in the first place. The fourth option is completely devoid of any nuance, which means that everyone in the 'satisfied but not 100%' is automatically not going to choose that option. Instead, they probably went for the third option, which could easily be re-worded as "I am satisfied with the game but would like to see changes" and the votes would (probably) still be (largely) the same.

If we would count the third option as a positive rather than a negative, the results would clearly show that people are generally happy with the game as it is, although a majority would like to see some elements changed.

"I am satisfied with the game but would like to see changes" includes the words "I am satisfied." That's the fourth option.

At any rate, we have people in the thread commenting who selected the third option and are clearly saying that they are not satisfied with the current state of the game.

Your attempt to misrepresent the current poll results is just GW cheerleading.

 Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game"...

This is false though. As someone already pointed out there is more to say then just "I'm satisfied" such as "I'm satisfied but I'd like the game to be better" or "I'm satisfied but my gaming group isn't".

Learn 2 logic.

Logically speaking, "but" just means "and." So if you're saying "I'm satisfied, but I'd like the game to be better," what you are saying is:

1. I am satisfied

AND

2. I would like the game to be better

If you're saying "I'm satisfied, but my gaming group isn't," what you're saying is:

1. I am satisfied

AND

2. My gaming group is not satisfied.

Note that in both of those instances, you are saying that you are, in fact, satisfied. Therefore, the fourth poll option is for you.

This isn't fething rocket science.

Why is this different then your No options? All 3 options say the same thing "No, I am not satisfied". In all 3 instances you are saying, that you are, in fact, not satisfied. Yet you felt the need to create 3 separate options for the same answer.

Where is the logic in that?

It should honestly just be,

-Yes I am
-No, post opinion
-Indifferent post why.

 kronk wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Learn 2 logic.

This isn't fething rocket science.

Why do people participate in Traditio threads?

Because it's entertaining.

That's why I'm doing it at the moment

 kronk wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Learn 2 logic.

This isn't fething rocket science.

Why do people participate in Traditio threads?

I think its a combination of morbid curiosity and hope that it wont turn into a gak fest. I mean, initially its a fairly decent question, and can warrant a valid conversations, but it quickly slides into madness.

sieGermans wrote:Then why have more than one option for Dissatisfied?

Because I'm interested in knowing, among people who are dissatisfied, just how dissatisfied they are.

There's a world of difference between "This game is so bad that I don't even play anymore" and "This game is bad, but still worth playing, at least for now."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Learn 2 logic.

This isn't fething rocket science.

Why do people participate in Traditio threads?

I think its a combination of morbid curiosity and hope that it wont turn into a gak fest. I mean, initially its a fairly decent question, and can warrant a valid conversations, but it quickly slides into madness.

It turns into gak fests because of trolls.

Seriously, people:

If you don't like the thread, if you don't like the poll, or if you don't think that the topic is worth discussing, then go find something better to do than troll my threads.

 Traditio wrote:

sieGermans wrote:Then why have more than one option for Dissatisfied?

Because I'm interested in knowing, among people who are dissatisfied, just how dissatisfied they are.

There's a world of difference between "This game is so bad that I don't even play anymore" and "This game is bad, but still worth playing, at least for now."

That why there should only really be a

yes
no
other

Then have them post why the are upset about it or not happy.

For example, i could say, hey overall im happy with the game, but not the models or vise versa. From a game point i could yes, and post why or no and post why.

I would almost say the poll is similar to "Leading the witness."

 kronk wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Learn 2 logic.

This isn't fething rocket science.

Why do people participate in Traditio threads?

I've been wondering this for fething months.

 kronk wrote:
Why do people participate in Traditio threads?

I genuinely thought that he might obtain some interesting data from this for all of us without turning it into a troll poll.

You can slap me for my failures now

 Traditio wrote:


It turns into gak fests because of trolls.

Seriously, people:

If you don't like the thread, if you don't like the poll, or if you don't think that the topic is worth discussing, then go find something better to do than troll my threads.

Pretty sure this is just desserts...

 Traditio wrote:


It turns into gak fests because of trolls.

Seriously, people:

If you don't like the thread, if you don't like the poll, or if you don't think that the topic is worth discussing, then go find something better to do than troll my threads.

Tradito people you troll you because you make it very easy for people to troll you.

 Traditio wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Looking at the results as they are at the moment, I'd say that the 'satisfied but would like to see improvement'-people mostly went with option 3, as that option can be read as such. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to change option 3's wording or add another 'satisfied' option.

But that would mean the poll might not lean in the OP's favor. We can't have that.

The poll, just like all previous polls, are designed specifically for the OP to self-affirm their bias. Everyone agrees, don't you see? Because if you don't, you're wrong.

This is so asinine!

The fact that there are three "no" answers and one "yes" answer is not in and of itself a bias in favor of a no answer. If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game" isn't going to magically make you click on a "no, I am not satisfied" option.

If I put up a poll question asking: "When is the last time you beat your wife," had 9 answers affirming that the respondent had beaten his wife, and only had one answer saying "I've never beaten my wife," what percent of people do you think would select the "no" answer?

So there are varying degrees of dissatisfaction, but no varying degrees of satisfaction? THAT is asinine. Par for the course with these polls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:


It turns into gak fests because of trolls.

Seriously, people:

If you don't like the thread, if you don't like the poll, or if you don't think that the topic is worth discussing, then go find something better to do than troll my threads.

Tradito people you troll you because you make it very easy for people to troll you.

People don't even troll him, these polls are the real trolls. Remember the time he admitted to trolling? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

A better poll option would have been something akin to a Likert scale. Something like:

How satisfied are you with 40k?

1) Not satisfied at all
2) Rarely satisfied
3) Usually satisfied
4) Mostly satisfied
5) Completely satisfied

Note that this particular poll doesn't account for whether the people are in competitive metas or more casual ones, whether they can make time to play, whether it's pickup or narrative play. But it's more fair than the one presented.

What the fourth option does is group all the potential 'satisfied' responses together. It's a weighted answer. Some people might enjoy 40k the way it is, other's might be satisfied but would like improvements made in areas.

I didn't answer the poll btw. Although I would have gone for the fifth option (5) I am not satisfied and have stopped playing and have sold most of my collection, but I am considering starting playing again.

CrownAxe wrote:Why is this different then your No options? All 3 options say the same thing "No, I am not satisfied". In all 3 instances you are saying, that you are, in fact, not satisfied. Yet you felt the need to create 3 separate options for the same answer.

Where is the logic in that?

Yes, I could have added more "yes" options. I also could have only had 1 no option.

That doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, there are two, and only two, basic possibilities:

"Yes, I am satisfied."
"No, I am not satisfied."

I chose to add more "no" options because I wanted to assess just how unsatisfied the unsatisfied people are.

I don't really care how satisfied the satisfied people are.

Again, this is not a bias in favor of dissatisfaction. If you're satisfied, then "how dissatisfied are you" isn't relevant to your "yes, I am satisfied" answer.

Seriously, folks. All of this nitpicking and hair-splitting is unnecessary.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Why is this different then your No options? All 3 options say the same thing "No, I am not satisfied". In all 3 instances you are saying, that you are, in fact, not satisfied. Yet you felt the need to create 3 separate options for the same answer.

Where is the logic in that?

Yes, I could have added more "yes" options. I also could have only had 1 no option.

That doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, there are two, and only two, basic possibilities:

"Yes, I am satisfied."
"No, I am not satisfied."

I chose to add more "no" options because I wanted to assess just how unsatisfied the unsatisfied people are.

I don't really care how satisfied the satisfied people are.

Again, this is not a bias in favor of dissatisfaction. If you're satisfied, then "how dissatisfied are you" isn't relevant to your "yes, I am satisfied" answer.

Seriously, folks. All of this nitpicking and hair-splitting is unnecessary.

You cant just say, I want to assess just how unsatisfied the unsatisfied people are, and then say, i dont care about the satisfied people, then say there is no bias, because you just said there is bias.

If all you cared about is satisfied, just ask

"Why are you dissatisfied with the game right now?"
-Prices
-Rules
-Lore
-Other

Traditio wrote:

sieGermans wrote:Then why have more than one option for Dissatisfied?

Because I'm interested in knowing, among people who are dissatisfied, just how dissatisfied they are.

Then why not make a poll "How dissatisfied are you with 40k?"

Wouldn't that give you the answers you want?

It seems rather unnecessary to include a 'satisfied' option if you want to know how dissatisfied people are.

Your attempt to misrepresent the current poll results is just GW cheerleading.

This is the most hilarious thing I've ever read. I'd exalt it if it wasn't trying to discredit my opinion

 Traditio wrote:

sieGermans wrote:Then why have more than one option for Dissatisfied?

Because I'm interested in knowing, among people who are dissatisfied, just how dissatisfied they are.

There's a world of difference between "This game is so bad that I don't even play anymore" and "This game is bad, but still worth playing, at least for now."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Learn 2 logic.

This isn't fething rocket science.

Why do people participate in Traditio threads?

I think its a combination of morbid curiosity and hope that it wont turn into a gak fest. I mean, initially its a fairly decent question, and can warrant a valid conversations, but it quickly slides into madness.

It turns into gak fests because of trolls.

Seriously, people:

If you don't like the thread, if you don't like the poll, or if you don't think that the topic is worth discussing, then go find something better to do than troll my threads.

I dig it--that's an understandable desire to have. Indeed, that information would be interesting, and I expect you will get an excellent breakdown of the nuance in negative opinions held by folks who voted negatively in this poll.

I suggest, however, that you might find some interesting reading in Polling methods if you research Priming and Framing when it comes to crafting polls like this. The phenomenon people are pointing out here is that although logically you are totally correct, in practice, polls with more Negative or Positive options than the other have a tendency to skew results.

In this case, you will likely end up with a Worse understanding after reading these results than before you started. For example, people who would otherwise vote that they were satisfied, will now be primed to think about what they dislike, indicating that they are a dissatisfied. However, these individuals, in some optimally crafted polling environment would not typify their perspective that way. Whereby, these folks may not reach the level of saying they would quit.

But it's possible that among non-primes, legitimately dissatisfied people, 100% of them are thinking of quitting! That would be very interesting to discover! But instead, we have a bunch of incorrectly 'dissatisfied' people muddying the results. :(

This is what we are talking about. It's not about GW cheerleading, it's about proper research and polling methods.

I hope this helps.

Frozocrone wrote:Note that this particular poll doesn't account for whether the people are in competitive metas or more casual ones, whether they can make time to play, whether it's pickup or narrative play. But it's more fair than the one presented.

All of that is fething IRRELEVANT to the question of whether or not you are satisfied.

No, the poll isn't designed to assess all possible degrees of satisfaction.

No, that doesn't make the poll flawed or biased.

It just means that it's not tracking those particular nuances. It's not pretending that they don't exist. It's just lumping them together under a broader genus.

The basic answers (namely "yes" and "no") are all there.

Edit:

You know, it's threads like this that make me seriously wonder just how much the dissatisfaction with 40k is actually due to the game, and how much due to the fething player base.

I voted option 3. The game has its problems, but it can be played and be fun as long as everyone involved is on the same page. With tournaments, you usually get that because most people who attend tournaments know what they're signing up for, and they bring their hardest lists. If you're lucky enough to have a regular playing group, you probably wind up with a group consensus of how to play. It's outside of these environments where the game can be most problematic. It can be frustrating to bring a reasonably fluffy TAC list for pickup gaming and wind up facing off against some tourney-champ-wannabe tryhard with his gray plastic army netlist. That's the game at its worst. The game isn't anywhere near balanced enough to make pickup gaming any kind of fun, unless everyone involved is bringing the hardest lists they can, and that sets the bar for entry very high.

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Why is this different then your No options? All 3 options say the same thing "No, I am not satisfied". In all 3 instances you are saying, that you are, in fact, not satisfied. Yet you felt the need to create 3 separate options for the same answer.

Where is the logic in that?

Yes, I could have added more "yes" options. I also could have only had 1 no option.

That doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, there are two, and only two, basic possibilities:

"Yes, I am satisfied."
"No, I am not satisfied."

I chose to add more "no" options because I wanted to assess just how unsatisfied the unsatisfied people are.

I don't really care how satisfied the satisfied people are.

Again, this is not a bias in favor of dissatisfaction. If you're satisfied, then "how dissatisfied are you" isn't relevant to your "yes, I am satisfied" answer.

Seriously, folks. All of this nitpicking and hair-splitting is unnecessary.

It's not hair splitting.

You're getting this response because your poll isn't clear.

70% satisfied is also 30% dissatisfied. So, you can be both satisfied and dissatisfied. According to your poll this falls into answers 1-3.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:

Traditio wrote:

sieGermans wrote:Then why have more than one option for Dissatisfied?

Because I'm interested in knowing, among people who are dissatisfied, just how dissatisfied they are.

Then why not make a poll "How dissatisfied are you with 40k?"

Wouldn't that give you the answers you want?

It seems rather unnecessary to include a 'satisfied' option if you want to know how dissatisfied people are.

Your attempt to misrepresent the current poll results is just GW cheerleading.

This is the most hilarious thing I've ever read. I'd exalt it if it wasn't trying to discredit my opinion

A poll that asked "How Dissatisfied Are You?" would have been logical (that's that thing OP wants, right, "logic"?), allowed nuance, and avoided being polluted by those whom the OP was not interested in hearing from.

And that last part. Amazing. How about I exalt your post so the statement is still exalted, just not credited to the source?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Why is this different then your No options? All 3 options say the same thing "No, I am not satisfied". In all 3 instances you are saying, that you are, in fact, not satisfied. Yet you felt the need to create 3 separate options for the same answer.

Where is the logic in that?

Yes, I could have added more "yes" options. I also could have only had 1 no option.

That doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, there are two, and only two, basic possibilities:

"Yes, I am satisfied."
"No, I am not satisfied."

I chose to add more "no" options because I wanted to assess just how unsatisfied the unsatisfied people are.

I don't really care how satisfied the satisfied people are.

Again, this is not a bias in favor of dissatisfaction. If you're satisfied, then "how dissatisfied are you" isn't relevant to your "yes, I am satisfied" answer.

Seriously, folks. All of this nitpicking and hair-splitting is unnecessary.

It's not hair splitting.

You're getting this response because your poll isn't clear.

70% satisfied is also 30% dissatisfied. So, you can be both satisfied and dissatisfied. According to your poll this falls into answers 1-3.

It's a binary thing: Either you're satisfied or you are not satisfied. Either the game's "good enough," or it isn't. There's no tertium quid.

 Traditio wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Why is this different then your No options? All 3 options say the same thing "No, I am not satisfied". In all 3 instances you are saying, that you are, in fact, not satisfied. Yet you felt the need to create 3 separate options for the same answer.

Where is the logic in that?

Yes, I could have added more "yes" options. I also could have only had 1 no option.

That doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, there are two, and only two, basic possibilities:

"Yes, I am satisfied."
"No, I am not satisfied."

I chose to add more "no" options because I wanted to assess just how unsatisfied the unsatisfied people are.

I don't really care how satisfied the satisfied people are.

Again, this is not a bias in favor of dissatisfaction. If you're satisfied, then "how dissatisfied are you" isn't relevant to your "yes, I am satisfied" answer.

Seriously, folks. All of this nitpicking and hair-splitting is unnecessary.

It's not hair splitting.

You're getting this response because your poll isn't clear.

70% satisfied is also 30% dissatisfied. So, you can be both satisfied and dissatisfied. According to your poll this falls into answers 1-3.

It's a binary thing: Either you're satisfied or you are not satisfied. Either the game's "good enough," or it isn't. There's no tertium quid.

Then why not post a yes or no poll if its binary.

 Traditio wrote:
You know, it's thread's like this that make me seriously wonder just how much the dissatisfaction with 40k is actually due to the game, and how much due to the fething player base.

Pretty sure only one person on this thread is actively contributing to the idea that 40k's player base is unpleasant...

Then why three options for not satisfied?

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Why is this different then your No options? All 3 options say the same thing "No, I am not satisfied". In all 3 instances you are saying, that you are, in fact, not satisfied. Yet you felt the need to create 3 separate options for the same answer.

Where is the logic in that?

Yes, I could have added more "yes" options. I also could have only had 1 no option.

That doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, there are two, and only two, basic possibilities:

"Yes, I am satisfied."
"No, I am not satisfied."

I chose to add more "no" options because I wanted to assess just how unsatisfied the unsatisfied people are.

I don't really care how satisfied the satisfied people are.

Again, this is not a bias in favor of dissatisfaction. If you're satisfied, then "how dissatisfied are you" isn't relevant to your "yes, I am satisfied" answer.

Seriously, folks. All of this nitpicking and hair-splitting is unnecessary.

It's not hair splitting.

You're getting this response because your poll isn't clear.

70% satisfied is also 30% dissatisfied. So, you can be both satisfied and dissatisfied. According to your poll this falls into answers 1-3.

It's a binary thing: Either you're satisfied or you are not satisfied. Either the game's "good enough," or it isn't. There's no tertium quid.

Then why not post a yes or no poll if its binary.

Because amazing mental gymnastics, as always. I recommend to everyone involved to let this thread fade downward. Best of luck!

 Traditio wrote:


It's a binary thing: Either you're satisfied or you are not satisfied. Either the game's "good enough," or it isn't. There's no tertium quid.

Then the options on the poll should have been binary, right?

How about a spectrum? On a scale where 1 is "ready to set my army on fire" and 10 is "Would give my sister's phone number to any GW manager I meet", how satisfied with 40k are you?

Backspacehacker wrote:Then why not post a yes or no poll if its binary.

Poll question: Did you beat your wife today?

1. Yes, and I did it with my bare hands.
2. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. However, that instrument was something, like a toothbrush or a shoe, which was not likely to leave permanent damage.
3. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. That instrument had the potential to cause serious damage...like a crowbar.
4. No, I didn't beat my wife today.

 kronk wrote:
Then the options on the poll should have been binary, right?

How about a spectrum? On a scale where 1 is "ready to set my army on fire" and 10 is "Would give my sister's phone number to any GW manager I meet", how satisfied with 40k are you?

That poll is much more logical than the "binary" state of "1-3 is no, 4 is yes." I'd also vote in it and would like to see the real results.

 Traditio wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:Why is this different then your No options? All 3 options say the same thing "No, I am not satisfied". In all 3 instances you are saying, that you are, in fact, not satisfied. Yet you felt the need to create 3 separate options for the same answer.

Where is the logic in that?

Yes, I could have added more "yes" options. I also could have only had 1 no option.

That doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, there are two, and only two, basic possibilities:

"Yes, I am satisfied."
"No, I am not satisfied."

I chose to add more "no" options because I wanted to assess just how unsatisfied the unsatisfied people are.

I don't really care how satisfied the satisfied people are.

Again, this is not a bias in favor of dissatisfaction. If you're satisfied, then "how dissatisfied are you" isn't relevant to your "yes, I am satisfied" answer.

Seriously, folks. All of this nitpicking and hair-splitting is unnecessary.

It's not hair splitting.

You're getting this response because your poll isn't clear.

70% satisfied is also 30% dissatisfied. So, you can be both satisfied and dissatisfied. According to your poll this falls into answers 1-3.

It's a binary thing: Either you're satisfied or you are not satisfied. Either the game's "good enough," or it isn't. There's no tertium quid.

Unfortunately you're measuring "40k" as an amalgamation of a lot of discrete parts.

Thus, the game can be "good enough" in some areas, and "not good enough" in others. Measuring that in an overall sense is not as simple as you claim.

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Then why not post a yes or no poll if its binary.

Poll question: Did you beat your wife today?

1. Yes, and I did it with my bare hands.
2. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. However, that instrument was something, like a toothbrush or a shoe, which was not likely to leave permanent damage.
3. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. That instrument had the potential to cause serious damage...like a crowbar.
4. No, I didn't beat my wife today.

You weren't asked how you beat her, you were asked if you did.

1. yes.
2. no
3. Mind your business

How can you answer your own question so wrong?

 Traditio wrote:
Poll question: Did you beat your wife today?

1. Yes, and I did it with my bare hands.
2. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. However, that instrument was something, like a toothbrush or a shoe, which was not likely to leave permanent damage.
3. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. That instrument had the potential to cause serious damage...like a crowbar.
4. No, I didn't beat my wife today.

This has got to be equally the best and worst analogy I've seen.

Also, what's your point?

I made a new thread, since this topic interests me, but I think the poll could use work. Find it here.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Poll question: Did you beat your wife today?

1. Yes, and I did it with my bare hands.
2. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. However, that instrument was something, like a toothbrush or a shoe, which was not likely to leave permanent damage.
3. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. That instrument had the potential to cause serious damage...like a crowbar.
4. No, I didn't beat my wife today.

This has got to be equally the best and worst analogy I've seen.

Also, what's your point?

That's three yes answers and only 1 no answer. So you're clearly going to get confused and pick one of the three yes answers, right?

 JNAProductions wrote:
I made a new thread, since this topic interests me, but I think the poll could use work. Find it here.

Good, time to let this nonsense thread fall off the page.

Are you satisfied with this thread?

1 - No, this thread totally sucks
2 - No, this thread is a waste of time
3 - No, this thread could use improvement
4 - Yes, this thread deserves a sticky

Steel Toe shoes could significantly hurt someone. Don't beat people with them.

Traditio wrote:That's three yes answers and only 1 no answer. So you're clearly going to get confused and pick one of the three yes answers, right?

But if you're actually trying to collect interesting and reliable data, why wouldn't you want to delve deeper into why people are still playing the game as equally as why people are not playing it?

Marmatag wrote:

Good, time to let this nonsense thread fall off the page.

Are you satisfied with this thread?

1 - No, this thread totally sucks
2 - No, this thread is a waste of time
3 - No, this thread could use improvement
4 - Yes, this thread deserves a sticky

All of the above see you on the other thread peeps!

G.A

 Traditio wrote:

Backspacehacker wrote:Then why not post a yes or no poll if its binary.

Poll question: Did you beat your wife today?

1. Yes, and I did it with my bare hands.
2. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. However, that instrument was something, like a toothbrush or a shoe, which was not likely to leave permanent damage.
3. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. That instrument had the potential to cause serious damage...like a crowbar.
4. No, I didn't beat my wife today.

Strawman, not relevant to the topic. What you present here is a binary yes or no.

Im satisfied is an objective opinion that needs an explanation as to why i am or am not satisfied.

Backspacehacker wrote:Strawman, not relevant to the topic. What you present here is a binary yes or no.

It's perfectly relevant. Ultimately, the core question is "Did you beat your wife today?" There are two, and only two, possible answers: "Yes" or "No."

In principle, I could leave the question there. I then can ask the question "how did you beat your wife, if you did?" I also can ask "Why did you beat your wife?" I can ask "Why didn't you beat your wife today?"

All of those are possible extras.

The fact that I lay out the different ways in which you can beat your wife doesn't mean that I'm biasing the poll by failing to ask you why you didn't beat your wife, if you didn't.

No, I didn't put a "No, I didn't beat my wife because I don't have one."

But so what? The end result is the same. No wife-beatings were administered by you today.

Im satisfied is an objective opinion that needs an explanation as to why i am or am not satisfied.

No, it doesn't necessarily need explanation. Because regardless of the explanation, either you ARE or ARE NOT satisfied.

If you want to measure satisfaction as a binary statement then the following is true:

As long as you have even a modicum of satisfaction, you are satisfied.

So, if you, or anyone can name even one, tiny thing that you are satisfied with about 40k, then you are satisfied. That is a true statement. I am 1% satisfied with 40k. Then technically and logically I AM satisfied. Just not very satisfied.

And this is why it's pointless to treat satisfaction as a binary thing, and not a scale.

Clearly we all have way too much time on our hands...

Maybe we should make a thread with a poll on "should we stop feeding Traditio by posting in his threads?" ...

Tradito, the problem is that when you try and set up a poll to look more deeply into something, you really should create a second poll. You shouldn't try to answer two questions with the same poll because you can end up with lots of people answering in a way that invites bias. While it may seem black or white to you, to most people it isn't. The thing about polls and the polling process is that you have to remember to make them for any type of person who might take the polls, not just for the people that you're trying to get an answer from.

For example;
Let's say that I am playing very little right now due to some issues with the game's meta and rules. I am, therefore, both satisfied enough to keep playing, while also not being dissatisfied enough to consider quitting. That leaves me somewhere between Option #3 and Option #4. However, there's also Option #2, which still leaves room for me to play, meaning I might still be satisfied enough to keep playing. My instinct will therefore be to selection Option #3 because it seems to be the "middle" option between those two.

However, if someone then reads the results of this poll, they may be lumped into an over-all "dissatisfied" group that includes people that are on the verge of quitting, and those that have already quit. If someone just used this poll as a means of answering whether people are, overall, satisfied or dissatisfied, they would come to a possibly incorrect conclusion.

Instead, a poll like this should be done as TWO poll questions:

#1 - Are you Satisfied or Dissatisfied with the current state of 40k?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied

#2 - If you are Dissatisfied or are Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied, on a scale from 1 to 10, how likely are you to quit, with 1 being "I have already quit", and 10 being "I will never quit".


This would give you the most definitive answer to your question. The first question lets you know how many people consider themselves Dissatisfied. The second question, which is aimed at people who may have varying levels of dissatisfaction, tells you just how dissatisfied people are.

 Traditio wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
Poll question: Did you beat your wife today?

1. Yes, and I did it with my bare hands.
2. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. However, that instrument was something, like a toothbrush or a shoe, which was not likely to leave permanent damage.
3. Yes. I used an instrument to beat her. That instrument had the potential to cause serious damage...like a crowbar.
4. No, I didn't beat my wife today.

This has got to be equally the best and worst analogy I've seen.

Also, what's your point?

That's three yes answers and only 1 no answer. So you're clearly going to get confused and pick one of the three yes answers, right?

This one never had a chance.

And for the record, I'm disappointed with quite a few in here...