Please Take. I am limited to 100 responses, so take the survey soon. It should not take too long, but will probably take at least 5 minutes.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2C9WQJL

Started to take the survey, but question 2 is pointless imho - what purpose does it serve?

Won't bother with the rest

What alliances do in the game should not matter. At all, as long as those alliances dont purposefully grief other alliances for the heck of it.

SO yar I agree with Trifey.

Lol that was fun

That seemed kinda pointless

The alliance thing is just a popularity contest imo. Unless an alliance actively breaks the game rules and gets away with it (not happening) their presence contributes something to the game.

That does not mean it is a positive contribution.

It may not be positive towards peoples play styles.

everyone agrees with this game needing more players

so having a mean horrible good for nothing alliance (lets say Rigor Mortis) is still good for the game since if they weren't around, the game would be that much smaller

so yeah, i believe it's a popularity contest - why not just use the +1/-1 allaince ranking thread wherever it is

Angel1's pretty reasonable so perhaps there's a reason why that question is on there - he'll probably explain the reasoning for it

why did i use reasonable there? i meant to say he's a smart fellow

edit: not saying that he's not reasonable, but i just used the wrong word

bah hehe

What Detmer said.

I agree with martian
I did complete the survey though

I disagree. I rated almost all alliances as good, even my enemies, with the exception of certain alliances that force destructive policies on the game and make the game impossible for new players(LAF).

fixed for you

I don't know how you can argue that.

http://forums.earthempires.com/...1296594301&z=dear-sol

lol, very well said.

Okay, with several people having responded, I can say that I'm seeing some results that I figured I would see (especially with regards to question 2). I won't go into specifics, but I'm seeing some things that might be included in future surveys.

Specifically about question 2: Question 2 is as many people have said not really that significant. I could have asked whether people felt that specific alliances were destructive to the game, but then they wouldn't have to site specific examples. By phrasing the question the way I did, we are able to collect information on that question for specific alliances. The question in this case is whether significant numbers of players believe that specific alliances are destructive to the game. While some alliances have pluralities of people who believe they are destructive to the game, no alliance has an absolute majority that believes this. This is largely what I expected, but I honestly expected more dissension among the players. So the question remains: why even have Question 2?

Question 2 serves the purpose of conclusively deciding whether significant majorities of players feel that any one alliance is destructive to the game. I will say that as it now stands, the worst case scenario is ultimately a wash on this question. A wash meaning that no alliance has 70%+ of respondents believing them to be detrimental to the game

We all know what the answer(s) to number 2 will be.

The only way that happens is if 2 alliances answered with over 70% of the people. You are going to show the results?

"Thank you for taking this survey"

Q 2- I believe all alliances help alliance server. I checked them all off. Its an alliance server ffs. I understand what you were looking for, but I am not bias about alliances, they all have ups, downs, agenda's and w/e.

xintros is a wise old man.

I did the same as Xintros. The only time I wouldn't is in the case we found organized cheating run by the leadership of a tag. But then they would be deleted anyway:P

I may share Omega's results as an example, but I'll probably leave it to alliance leaders to request results for their specific alliance and to determine whether or not to release those results. I'll provide the overall results of Question 2.

Aside from that, I see no reason why I can't compile the other results onto this post...when I have time.

Why wouldn't you show all the results?

I only take surveys with my penis.

So basically I answer all questions with this:

avnfud9p9no;j - Penis mash

Yea, we took the survey so show us the results.

stoopid biased survey is stoopid and biased

I dislike the secrecy surrounding the results, so I spoiled my ballot.

You are welcome to share my results. I'm the one who put "War I'd like to see" as "All vs LAF"

All wouldnt stand a chance Orky! ;)

LaF doesn't want any part of me! Or did you forget when I started killing SOL countries with AT posts?

I plan to show the results of all the questions, except for question 2.

As I have stated above, question 2 was really the expansion of a more general question. By asking several specific questions, I am able to get a more valid and accurate answer to the general question. I don't feel the need to give the results to the specific questions when they merely expanded a more general question. It would be disrespectful to those alliances whose numbers I reveal and unnessecary for the point of the question. I will not even reveal Omega's numbers on question 2 if my fellow leaders in Omega object. I will reveal the results to the general question and leave it to alliance leaders to request the specific results and to reveal those results.

I believe that not revealing the specific results to question 2 is the right thing to do. Overall results to the question will suffice and be respectful to the alliances in question 2.

This survery is flawed, and our petty attempts to blame one another for the games failure is also flawed.

There are two prospectives when addressing the actions that alliances take on one another and how it affects the game and its player base. That isnt to say of course there is no shades of grey in between these prospective, but both views must be considered when determinning what really matters to the survival of the game and its future.

1) This is a community first then a game second.
"We must consider how our actions will affect other players within the game. Simply acting without thinking how it affects others will further destroy the community and drive players away."

2) This is a game first and a community second.
"I have the right to defend myself the way I choose too. I have no wish to drive players away, but I will not hesitate to take action if I believe I have the right too."

Quickly looking over this, we can see that there are flaws with these two prospectives. First, as players our main focus and concern should not have to be on the wellfare of the game and its future, that responsibility is on the admins and devs shoulders of the game. It isnt wrong for the player base to care for the games future, but it shouldn't be a number one priority. Our piriouty should be to have fun, and really who is having fun right now? In the end, the people who control the game will decide whether the game will live or die.

Secondly, it doesnt matter what we think or do, the game is self destructive as long as there are two prosespectives on how to play this game. Netting and war. Netters hate warring, and when there was a large population a lot of netters didnt have to fear warring one another. With warriors, well, without the possibility of peace every alliance would simply fight each other all the dam time, basicly creating a game with no politics.
Without the possibility of warring with netters those, all you guys would be doing is playing with a calculator.

Back to my original point, right now as you can see there is no balance to the game WITHOUT the players themselves, this is the major flaw to the game. The game has no control on what will occur in the game. It is its inherent behavior is to destroy itself. It doesn't matter what we try or try not to do. A large population can create the re-balance needed, but the dependency will always be there.

To further make my point in terms of why this survey is flawed, this game has "TWO" gaming behaviors. Either War or Netting. As with both of these prospectives, there are shades of grey of what alliances wish to do.

Netting fits on prosective (1) the best and war fits on prosective (2) the best. Right now the game is very heavy on netters vs war alliances. More so, the survey itself comes from the prospective of (1) already, further flawing the survey from being unbiased.


(end rant)

Bah we want to know which alliance answered it the most!

Results to be posted shortly. I maintain that I will not post the results of the alliance portion of the survey, except in index form.

Game administrators are active:

Strongly Disagree (SD) - 1.2%
Disagree (D) - 4.8%
Neutral (N) - 11.9%
Agree (A) - 32.1%
Strongly Agree (SA) - 48.8%
Don't Know (DK) - 1.2%



Game moderators are fair:

SD - 7.2%
D - 6%
N - 13.3%
A - 30.1%
SA - 36.1%
DK - 7.2%



It is easy to upload advisor and spyops to third party sites:

SD - 1.2%
D - 3.6%
N - 6%
A - 19%
SA - 67.9%
DK - 2.4%



The game is easy to navigate on computers:

SD - 1.2%
D - 3.6%
N - 3.6%
A - 25%
SA - 63.1%
DK - 3.6%



The game is easy to navigate while using the mobile pages:

SD - 3.7%
D - 14.6%
N - 18.3%
A - 24.4%
SA - 14.6%
DK - 24.4%


I like the current features of the game:

SD - 1.2%
D - 7.2%
N - 10.8%
A - 56.6%
SA - 22.9%
DK - 1.2%



I believe that additional features should be added to the game:

SD - 1.2%
D - 6%
N - 16.9%
A - 25.3%
SA - 44.6%
DK - 6%

The mobile pages are an interesting one. I do believe that it is in need of improvement. It works, but it could be nicer.

Also, as stated on many occasions I believe an iPhone app to be of great potential to the future of the game.

Why?

PERspective

(end rant)

How many respondents did you get? Somewhere between 80-90?

Overall, I believe that these alliance's benefit the game:

Strongly Disagree - 1 Alliance (did not exceed 30% of respondents)
Disagree - 1 Alliance (did not exceed 22%)
Neutral - 3 Alliances* (did not exceed 32%)
Agree - 14 Alliances* (did not exceed 41%)
Strongly Agree - 1 Alliance (did not exceed 35%)
Don't Know - 0 Alliances (did not exceed 9%)

*2 Alliances tied for the Neutral and Agree categories they are both included in the totals for each category

Combinded Categories:

1. Strongly Disagree and Disagree - 2 Alliances (did not exceed 46%)
2. Agree and Strongly Agree - 16 Alliances (did not exceed 68%)
3. Neutral and Don't Know - 0 Alliances (did not exceed 39%)


Combined Categories Ranking:

1, 2, 3 Order - 2 Alliances
2, 1, 3 Order - 3 Alliances
2, 3, 1 Order - 13 Alliances

For the record, 85 people responded to the survey before I closed it.

I will not post the detailed results for individual alliances because I believe that to be disrespectful to those alliances and ultimately unproductive to the community as a whole. Posting the details of the alliances individually would make the conclusions of that question into a simple popularity contest.

What about the other questions? What wars would you like to see, who would you like to return, etc.? Any interesting trends?

A man needs to eat and sleep, I may post those results tomorrow, but Monday at the latest.

Okay, the relatively easy ones to compile where the alliances and people to return

Alliances: Arrow (14) and IX (13) dominated

Players had no real domination, but Norcal, Comwood, and Mehul each got 2 votes; Cartoon got 3 votes.

Several players answered that they most wanted to see no specific player or alliance to return


The wars really will have to wait for later to be posted.

So it's okay to reveal the winner of two popularity contests (which former alliance is your favourite? which former player is your favourite?) but not a third (which current alliance is your favourite?) Interesting.

Lol My bad.

The player and alliance questions aren't really popularity contests. In one case, a person wanted IX back as an enemy.

I doubt very seriously that Mehul is "popular" here.

At any rate, people are not asked to judge the alliances or the players on either question. Why the alliance or player was chosen is left to the imagination of those people reading these results.

Your question isn't asking people to judge the alliances either. It's asking people to judge the impact of those alliances on the game. There is a distinction. As others have said above, they voted favourably in terms of the benefit to the game despite negative feelings towards the alliance.