RE: It's That Time Again! The 2002 RPG Enhancement Poll

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Barbara Morris
>
> Pardon me for jumping in, but we already know that most of the items are
> desirable to most people.  So we want to know what you want most.  I'm
> glad that we managed to set the prices in a way that is forcing you to
> choose.

Last comment on the topic: by limiting the input, you're limiting the input.
Sounds redundant, but it's true.  A tiered approach such as I've suggested
would give you all the same information of what you've done, plus more.  The
pure ranking list that Aaron suggests doesn't take into account your
weightings of the difficulties, but you could simulate it by taking the
first $100 in his list and assigning those features to tier 1, the next $100
to tier 2 and so on.

You would then have all the raw data you need.  You can run your analysis
just on tier 1 to get that information, but you might find that there are a
whole lot of "cries in the wilderness" for some feature that just doesn't
make it into the first tier.

Is this important?  I don't know.  But let's say you can't fit everybody's
number one requirements in the next release (that's actually pretty likely).
If you could add one low-cost feature that EVERYONE wants, even if it is a
second tier desire, that would seem to me to be a desirable thing, and a way
to increase the satisfaction of those who don't get their number one
requirements.

With the current system, it's quite possible that you'd have a variety of
different enhancments that show up in your top 10, yet there might be an
enhancement that EVERYONE wants that just doesn't quite make the grade.  By
reducing our input, you'll never see that second tier request.

Just my opinion, but in a poll, the more information the better.  Pruning
the poll to reduce the raw data doesn't seem to be the best way to focus the
results.

Joe