As an optional feature, if you dont enable it you will not be affected.
If you select 4, it would be great if you could give a reason for using it despite not liking it.If you select 6, it would be great if you could give a reason for not wanting it.
External link →In the future, if you'd like accurate results, it's best to not bias your results in the question. You are affected by alternate movement options being made available regardless of if you use them or not. Also, it's best not to ask for reasons on only some options but if you do, given that the current version is not having it, requesting a reason to backup your selection should be on the pro, not con options.
Options that provide significant advantages aren't options.
Wasn't that basically the gist of the EHG response about WASD in the other threads?
That's the root of the issue yes. (and it was me you're referring to)
Gotcha, sorry it was a quote in a quote, I didn't track the name.
But I agree, both about "options" and about biased polling "data" .
Some things make sense as options, like keybinds. But how a character controls/plays has so many knock down effects on balance and even how skills work and feel, that it seems strictly in the realm of design decisions. Not to mention any technical challenges with animation or otherwise that's inevitably going to cause.
It's funny you mention that, the animator is the only technical hurdle we would need to work on.
I tried to not bias this poll in any way, so please elaborate:
"You are affected by alternate movement options being made available regardless of if you use them or not." - but only because of the development time, right? and thats why a added this as an option to select. And making a "thought experiment" of it not having additional effects in required for an unbiased poll, otherwise id have to incorporate any possible effect and then this would get much to complicated for a poll.
"best not to ask for reasons on only some options" - all options have a reason(except the thwo where im asking):
1. i want to use it, 2.&3. I dont care, 5.Dont want devs to spent time.
These are the Reasons that i know of, thats why i provided them as options
4.&6. are some additions just to give more voting options, but i dont know reasons
And if someone selects those, it would be nice to provide a reason, like all other options inherently doIve read in other posts that WASD is said to provide an in-game advantage, but because i play offline i disregarded it. And of the (currently) 4 people that selected 6. none mentioned this here, so it doesnt seem like big problem.
And if the 19 people that selected 5. also dont want it because of an suposed in-game advantade, that that is still 23 against 31 for and 38 neutral, so most people dont think that WASD would be problematic and affect them just by existing and possibly giving an in-game advantege.
So offline you aren't affected by it at much but those that play online are affected because it suddenly becomes harder to compete on the ladder if you don't use it. Also the development time (which is not insignificant). So the are at least 2 ways people are generally affected. So seeding that you are unaffected at the top immediately biases the poll.
Then making the options end it "will use it" implies that we are making it and people are selecting what they are going to do when it is added. The options should say"would use" and "wouldn't use".
Making a poll or survey it's actually a really difficult thing to do without inserting your own bias. Even the order of the options can affect the outcome.
Then by asking for an explanation of the negative options is saying that you agree with the pros and don't need a reason from them but the people who picked the "wrong" option need to explain themselves. Bit of an exaggeration to illustrate the point.
Edit: I know you weren't intending to bias the poll. It's just a minefield and almost impossible to not hit at least one of them.
devtrackers.gg