[Final Battle] "dead pls WP" vs. "sum1 rez pls"

[sephiroth.4217]

@Seera.5916 said:

> > @sephiroth.4217 said:

> > > @Seera.5916 said:

> > > > @sephiroth.4217 said:

> > > > I believe in rezzing the downs, you know, helping my fellow gamer out.

> > > >

> > > > I think it's elitism or autism not too.

> > >

> > > Poll is about the fully dead, not the downed.

> >

> > OK because I can't edit I'll rephrase what I mean....

> >

> > I believe in rezzing the dead, you know, helping my fellow gamer out.

> > I think it's elitism or autism not too.

>

> But there are situations where going to the waypoint and running back is faster than being rezzed. Or way more safer for everyone involved. Or much less likely to cause the event to fail due to not having a high enough average DPS if it's a boss on a timer and not a huge zerg (rezzing reduces the DPS even more since the rezzer can't attack).

>

> I'll rez typically if it's safe to do so, I've already got credit for the event, and the loss of my DPS won't cause the event to be at risk of failure due to a timer. And I haven't seen the player be obnoxious about getting a rez in chat.

 

There will always be a hypothetical situation or a 1 off situation but I'm clearly referring to what happens most of the time.

[sephiroth.4217]

I really hate these forums, silly build drafts, no edits, no deletion.....

[Zacchary.6183]

> @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > > > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > > > @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > > > > > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > > > > > @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > > > > > I'm confused why people are so adamant about discussing the options (or lack thereof) of the poll. Sure, fine, if you don't agree with the OP's options you can make a post and move on but if it's that much of an issue to you, then WHY did you vote in the poll at all!? It's the OP's choice how to conduct his poll and it can't be changed. Trying to change is mind about it while ignoring his points only returns animosity and no one wants to bother with that.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > But ultimately, polls are useless anyway, specifically online polls, so stop getting your panties in a bunch and move along.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Well OP said he was going to base further debate and even 'solutions' on the answers to this poll so if the answers are wrong thats a problem.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Also it was 7am and I couldnt sleep so was bored and OP was refusing to admit he was wrong so trying to change his mind was something to do.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I can't change the polls. So deal with it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Fine then just dont use this poll as evidence for any further discussion.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Because I didn't put a neutral answer? This isn't a most popular opinion contest. Plenty of people who chose Waypoint when Dead in this poll chose indifferent in the other poll, which is something I already knew was going to happen. What does that tell you? It means that waypointing when dead is a preference. A highly recommended preference by a majority. Despite what you think, my poll has already achieved it's goal. I am just waiting for the votes to slow.

> > > > >

> > > > > Nah coz your poll is bad and doesn't give questions which can answer the question you want. Ive tried to show you but u are stubborn and wont admit it so meh

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Your opinion means nothing to me. If my poll offended you in anyway, you are free to make your own.

> > >

> > > Its not an opinion its a fact. If you are going to do research then you have to make sure your data collection method is valid or fact criticism. Im not offended. I dont care about it enough to get offended. Everyone knows with or without a poll that people prefer you to wp over lying dead on the floor. Just you being stubborn over **a poll which is clearly wrong** and then using it to back up your opinion in furture discussions is misleading for the playerbase and anet and is honestly pointless to do.

> >

> > That is subjective and not based on fact in any way. Hence your opinion.

>

> Nah. Validity is a fundemental part of science and research. Its not opinion. It can be tested by scientific method and has entire fields dedicated to it. Your poll has 0 validity so its wrong. Thats a fact. Im done arguing with you.

>

> If you want to be so offended by me criticising it that you are going to be stubborn and argue with not just me but multiple people telling you over and over why its wrong then thats your problem. You are obviously not suited to do research.

 

How can you declare something invalid when you yourself don't read anything in the first place? Literally, the second sentence in the OP says "it is finally time to figure out who is in the majority". And you in an earlier comment say this:

> @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> Well if the point of the poll **is to decide if its better to res or wp** then the 2nd question should be 'players should wait for res'

And then you go onto even agree with someone else who not only missed the whole point of the poll, but started dictating how my poll should have been done.

> @zombyturtle.5980 said:

> > @"Teofa Tsavo.9863" said:

> > The poll is useless. **The question should be "Should a player be forced to WP when dead by new game mechanic, ie short timer".** That is the argument.

> > I think it is best to WP out. I also am against forcing players to play a certain way as well.

> > This "poll" is slanted and invalid, the way the questions are presented.

> > You are going to take "The majority think people should WP out when dead" and spin it to "The majority think dead people should be auto-waypointed after X seconds".

> >

> > Forcing people to WP is the hot topic on the other thread. I think a lot of people agree that a player "should" WP out when dead. I do. However, I am really opposed to making it an automatic mechanic. I imagine others are as well. In essence, I am saying yes to both questions as they are phrased. "Have to" implies being forced.

>

> Yes i agree. The answers in the poll are answers to 2 completely different questions. I seriously hope further discussion isnt founded on the answers in this poll being proof because its so badly flawed. Im surprised more people cant notice it.

 

And I stated multiple times that what's being said is not what this poll is about. This is an entirely convoluted way to go about hijacking someone's poll (and yes you are trying to [hijack](https://www.google.com/search?ei=cuH_WaeWLIHnmQHM1q-ACg&q=hijack&oq=hijack&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.611919.612933.0.613380.6.6.0.0.0.0.126.368.0j3.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..3.3.366...0i131k1.0.hk6An1iqGd0#dobs=hijacking "hijack") it). Please stop it and make your own poll instead of trying to derail mine.

[Tenrai Senshi.2017]

To be honest, I think the wording in your reasoning for either side is a bit biased. You try to make players who don't res out to be elitist or selfish, when that is often not the case. And even if it was simply an attempt to view things from the perspective of others, or represent how others might think, it still means you are impressing your beliefs onto others, while not considering that they might agree or disagree with a particular point, but NOT for the reasons you try to impress.

 

From my perspective, there are many situations in the game, particularly in big open world events, where resurrecting is simply not viable.

 

Take Tequatl for example. If someone dies during this event, it is often very difficult to resurrect them because of the sheer amount of damage AoE's being spammed out by the boss. I've seen situations where several players have died trying to resurrect one player, and as more players try to res them, the amounts of deaths can multiply very quickly. If the player that had died simply waypointed instead, it would have taken maybe 30 seconds to run back, but instead of one player being taken out of combat for 30 seconds, you expect several players to be taken out of combat for that much time or more, to try res that player (with them often failing or dying in the process). For bosses that are very dps intensive, and that have limited time frames for success, this is not a good strategy. This same example can be applied to Vine Wrath. Trying to res dead players during champ battles in that event is an incredibly effective way of ensuring failure.

 

With that being said, for bosses where this is not the case, such as easier world bosses, or ones that are less time/coordination intensive, I never actually see people asking the dead to wp, and most of the time they are simply resurrected by other players. So it's not like players are purposely trying to be anal about resurrecting, they are simply applying the best strategy for each individual battle.

 

In the end, if you want to promote resurrection during combat or world events, then that needs to be incentivized by the mechanics of the battle itself. The problem right now is that in many cases, resurrecting players is simply not a viable strategy and that is a design issue, not a player issue. If ANet, for example, made it so that resurrecting had benefits, like a dps increase for both players after resurrecting someone during Tequatl, then that would help incentivize players assisting one another. However, when you punish players for trying to resurrect another player, with said punishment often leading to an event failure for both parties, then obviously players will be less inclined to attempt it.

 

In the end, though I voted for players WP-ing, in reality, I'd view each situation from a case-by-case perspective. What I'd ideally like is for players to have a good reason to resurrect each other in all battles, but that is not the current reality.

[Majic.4801]

I think we need more threads to not resolve this issue.

[Tasida.4085]

If I see someone lying dead in a meta I leave them. Especially DS. The wp's are close by and they can get their lazy selves to wp and come back. I will rez in regular events though. Meta dead stays dead.

[Sykper.6583]

I'm of the opinion to WP more than stay dead. It takes quite a few players in combat to rez a defeated player in any quick amount of time, a single person doing it puts them in danger for dozens of seconds.

 

Imo, the best cases to WP back would be when large meta events are going on and around 5-10 people are just laying there waiting for a rez. These are the players that definitely should run back, there's way too many people to rez effectively and you can only cause more deaths as your defeated numbers will take a lot of time for the group to recover from.

 

I would say rez the single defeated player out of 60 who somehow managed to die, that's probably the only instance it makes sense to stick around on the ground.

[lokh.2695]

First, I guess the difference has been established somewhere in the thread but still. Getting up the downed is fine and certainly something I go for, but I'm hesitant to rez the completely dead. I get some of the arguments for rezzing the dead. Still I think you should WP when you're dead. You should learn to get the next WP first before going into an event. You should learn to avoid the red circles that kill you. You should learn to gear/spec/play properly so you don't die with every hit. Rezzing the dead doesn't help ppl learn these things.

I still rez dead players in the open or ppl who die in JPs and such, but during big events the arguments for "Port if you're dead", for me, outweigh being a nice guy and rezing a dead player.

[Shirlias.8104]

However, 1/4 is really disappointing.

[Despond.2174]

Well of course if you're fully dead use a WP unless the meta is about to end. That's fair on yourself and your team, I didn't think that was even called into question. Thankfully by the results I see 3/4 agree though I am a little shocked to see 1/4 think it's fair, maybe they are confusing it with partially dead with full dead. If I am fully dead I am not waiting around for 3-4 players to slowly res me while they have to keep dodging, rezing, and sometimes dying themselves to cause a chain reaction of dead people when only one person had to do was take a WP.

 

With mounts you can be back in seconds, take your WP if you're fully dead and return to the action.

[Zaltys.7649]

Yeah, it depends. How far is the WP? Can someone actually ress you or are they too busy trying to stay alive?

 

It's usually better to wp, but... let's say for example, if you die to the night bosses (such as the wyvern patriarch) in VB, then it's probably preferable to stick around and wait for a ress.

[Butch.4957]

If I am simply downed, I will do my best to get back up and hope someone comes to Rez me. However, if I become fully dead I will instantly waypoint to my nearest waypoint. Even if someone starts to rez me I will waypoint. It is inconsiderate to others to stay as a corpse on the ground instead of getting To the nearest waypoint, running back, and continuing the fight.

[Sobx.1758]

Hey guys, good talk. Lets get to the important part now:

Currently we have 184 votes in this poll. What % of the community is that? :lol:

[Dashiva.6149]

> @Sobx.1758 said:

> Hey guys, good talk. Lets get to the important part now:

> Currently we have 184 votes in this poll. What % of the community is that? :lol:

 

184 votes out of how many thousand players? Rather small % I think.

[kharmin.7683]

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> >

>

> This is just to gauge the community's general outlook. I will be doing another poll based on which one has more votes and it won't be so polarized then.

 

The sample size on the forums can in no way be reliably indicative of the "community" as a whole. This poll is inherently flawed.

[Sobx.1758]

> @Dashiva.6149 said:

> > @Sobx.1758 said:

> > Hey guys, good talk. Lets get to the important part now:

> > Currently we have 184 votes in this poll. What % of the community is that? :lol:

>

> 184 votes out of how many thousand players? Rather small % I think.

 

Exactly.

[DerJoker.9081]

Downed Players should be the immidiate focus of everyone around them, it takes barely 5 seconds if all in range start to rezz the second someone goes down...

If for any reasons the rezz fails, the dead should waypoint and rerun, rezzing from dead takes ages and risks you way more than rezzing a downed... :)

[Zacchary.6183]

 

> @kharmin.7683 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > >

> >

> > This is just to gauge the community's general outlook. I will be doing another poll based on which one has more votes and it won't be so polarized then.

>

> The sample size on the forums can in no way be reliably indicative of the "community" as a whole. This poll is inherently flawed.

 

Most of the playerbase doesn't even use the forums and the old forums have not been taken down yet. But even if the poll numbers are too small to be considered a reasonable sample size, you can still take the results and observe them in real time.

[Aeolus.3615]

no waypoint, MM mobs need added and make minions out of reckd players bodys and then only after each player get its mob version killed, only then he can be revived

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

>

> > @kharmin.7683 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > >

> > >

> > > This is just to gauge the community's general outlook. I will be doing another poll based on which one has more votes and it won't be so polarized then.

> >

> > The sample size on the forums can in no way be reliably indicative of the "community" as a whole. This poll is inherently flawed.

>

> Most of the playerbase doesn't even use the forums and the old forums have not been taken down yet. But even if the poll numbers are too small to be considered a reasonable sample size, you can still take the results and observe them in real time.

 

Sample size on the forums will never be big enough. To be fair, whenever someone on these forums starts complaining about sample size, they really don't know what is actually important in polls.

 

Who is the sample, and how is the poll phrased matter several factors more than sample size.

 

Just for a fun fact, political poll sample size is like less than 0.1% in most countries and then I picked even a high percentage.

[Seera.5916]

> @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> >

> > > @kharmin.7683 said:

> > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > This is just to gauge the community's general outlook. I will be doing another poll based on which one has more votes and it won't be so polarized then.

> > >

> > > The sample size on the forums can in no way be reliably indicative of the "community" as a whole. This poll is inherently flawed.

> >

> > Most of the playerbase doesn't even use the forums and the old forums have not been taken down yet. But even if the poll numbers are too small to be considered a reasonable sample size, you can still take the results and observe them in real time.

>

> Sample size on the forums will never be big enough. To be fair, whenever someone on these forums starts complaining about sample size, they really don't know what is actually important in polls.

>

> Who is the sample, and how is the poll phrased matter several factors more than sample size.

>

> Just for a fun fact, political poll sample size is like less than 0.1% in most countries and then I picked even a high percentage.

 

However, with political polls, the pollers go find the random people to ask. So they do the work to reduce the chances of sample bias. Forum polls are like saying a poll is for all of the US, but only polling in Dallas, Texas.

[FrizzFreston.5290]

> @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> >

> > > @kharmin.7683 said:

> > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > This is just to gauge the community's general outlook. I will be doing another poll based on which one has more votes and it won't be so polarized then.

> > >

> > > The sample size on the forums can in no way be reliably indicative of the "community" as a whole. This poll is inherently flawed.

> >

> > Most of the playerbase doesn't even use the forums and the old forums have not been taken down yet. But even if the poll numbers are too small to be considered a reasonable sample size, you can still take the results and observe them in real time.

>

> Sample size on the forums will never be big enough. To be fair, whenever someone on these forums starts complaining about sample size, they really don't know what is actually important in polls.

>

> Who is the sample, and how is the poll phrased matter several factors more than sample size.

>

> Just for a fun fact, political poll sample size is like less than 0.1% in most countries.

 

> @Seera.5916 said:

> > @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > >

> > > > @kharmin.7683 said:

> > > > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > > > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > This is just to gauge the community's general outlook. I will be doing another poll based on which one has more votes and it won't be so polarized then.

> > > >

> > > > The sample size on the forums can in no way be reliably indicative of the "community" as a whole. This poll is inherently flawed.

> > >

> > > Most of the playerbase doesn't even use the forums and the old forums have not been taken down yet. But even if the poll numbers are too small to be considered a reasonable sample size, you can still take the results and observe them in real time.

> >

> > Sample size on the forums will never be big enough. To be fair, whenever someone on these forums starts complaining about sample size, they really don't know what is actually important in polls.

> >

> > Who is the sample, and how is the poll phrased matter several factors more than sample size.

> >

> > Just for a fun fact, political poll sample size is like less than 0.1% in most countries and then I picked even a high percentage.

>

> However, with political polls, the pollers go find the random people to ask. So they do the work to reduce the chances of sample bias. Forum polls are like saying a poll is for all of the US, but only polling in Dallas, Texas.

 

Which I stated with "who is the sample" ;) I mostly wanted to illustrate that SIZE isn't what matters.

[Zacchary.6183]

> @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > Biased? Really? Because if I put Depends in there and it becomes the majority (which it most likely will be), then that means that each case has to be handled individually making fixing the core issue impossible. This goes against what I am trying to accomplish. So I stay by what I said.

>

> So, we're going to disregard that it might be better to handle each case individually in search for the nuclear catch all solution. Fantastic. (Disregarding the whole can of worms with Polls where the maker have an agenda instead of finding objective distribution.)

>

> I just treated the two options as "have to waypoint" and "don't have to waypoint", because it depends on the situation (thus They don't have to, although it's more a NO this poll is not good at all). But the poll like this is heavily biased to "you should waypoint" because that's just obvious in moments where it matters.

 

I meant to answer this sooner.

 

It is better to find a nuclear catch all solution because the reality is that this issue is already being handled by the playerbase and it is going nowhere. Unless anet screws over one side to cater to the other or overhauls the dynamic event mechanic entirely, there really is nothing that can be done to solve it. And that has been going on for years. Its safe to assume that unless something gives, this problem will persist until server shutdown. Do you agree?

 

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that with this poll forcing a side, there can at least be some indication as to who would get screwed over more.

 

I already anticipated all of this (which I ended up being right anyway before the other poll got merged) and deemed that putting a neutral answer would simply confirm what I and many other players already knew. A large portion of the playerbase would prefer a player waypoint when they die during a large scale event, but most of them find it all situational and don't really care that much based on the other poll. You can confirm that by simply playing the game. There is also the other group that would prefer not to waypoint, with a good part not liking the idea of being pressured or forced to waypoint by any means. Both sides are vocal. So adding a neutral answer would not do anything except confirm the obvious, which I just stated and was seen on the other poll. By omitting the neutral option I force a player to choose one or the other, I clean the results to something more useful.

 

In any case, wording and semantics only goes so far. I may have worded it poorly, but that didn't stop people from voting anyway. So its safe to assume they got the message and voted. But really, what does "Players should have to waypoint if they die during an event." and "Players should not waypoint (if they die) during an event." tell you?

 

To me, the first option worded as such would suggest they would want a forced waypoint mechanic. The second one sounds exactly like the first one EXCEPT it implies that players have the obligation to wait for a rez rather than waypoint. The first option would have gotten me data I was not looking for. The second one is too counter-intuitive that the poll numbers would have leaned more towards waypoint than it should have been. So the options I have are the best ones I have to work with. They are, in fact, the general consensus for each group.

 

In the end, this is why I can't find this bias towards players who would rather waypoint on dead, as some people have stated. I already knew where the majority of the community stood on this. No matter how I would have worded it, it would have shown the same results every single time because if you boil down this whole topic to it's very base, you get practicality vs feelings. The broader area of effect always wins and in this case, it's practicality.

[Seera.5916]

> @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > @FrizzFreston.5290 said:

> > > @Zacchary.6183 said:

> > > Biased? Really? Because if I put Depends in there and it becomes the majority (which it most likely will be), then that means that each case has to be handled individually making fixing the core issue impossible. This goes against what I am trying to accomplish. So I stay by what I said.

> >

> > So, we're going to disregard that it might be better to handle each case individually in search for the nuclear catch all solution. Fantastic. (Disregarding the whole can of worms with Polls where the maker have an agenda instead of finding objective distribution.)

> >

> > I just treated the two options as "have to waypoint" and "don't have to waypoint", because it depends on the situation (thus They don't have to, although it's more a NO this poll is not good at all). But the poll like this is heavily biased to "you should waypoint" because that's just obvious in moments where it matters.

>

> I meant to answer this sooner.

>

> It is better to find a nuclear catch all solution because the reality is that this issue is already being handled by the playerbase and it is going nowhere. Unless anet screws over one side to cater to the other or overhauls the dynamic event mechanic entirely, there really is nothing that can be done to solve it. And that has been going on for years. Its safe to assume that unless something gives, this problem will persist until server shutdown. Do you agree?

>

> EDIT: I also forgot to mention that with this poll forcing a side, there can at least be some indication as to who would get screwed over more.

>

> I already anticipated all of this (which I ended up being right anyway before the other poll got merged) and deemed that putting a neutral answer would simply confirm what I and many other players already knew. A large portion of the playerbase would prefer a player waypoint when they die during a large scale event, but most of them find it all situational and don't really care that much based on the other poll. You can confirm that by simply playing the game. There is also the other group that would prefer not to waypoint, with a good part not liking the idea of being pressured or forced to waypoint by any means. Both sides are vocal. So adding a neutral answer would not do anything except confirm the obvious, which I just stated and was seen on the other poll. By omitting the neutral option I force a player to choose one or the other, I clean the results to something more useful.

>

> In any case, wording and semantics only goes so far. I may have worded it poorly, but that didn't stop people from voting anyway. So its safe to assume they got the message and voted. But really, what does "Players should have to waypoint if they die during an event." and "Players should not waypoint (if they die) during an event." tell you?

>

> To me, the first option worded as such would suggest they would want a forced waypoint mechanic. The second one sounds exactly like the first one EXCEPT it implies that players have the obligation to wait for a rez rather than waypoint. The first option would have gotten me data I was not looking for. The second one is too counter-intuitive that the poll numbers would have leaned more towards waypoint than it should have been. So the options I have are the best ones I have to work with. They are, in fact, the general consensus for each group.

>

> In the end, this is why I can't find this bias towards players who would rather waypoint on dead, as some people have stated. I already knew where the majority of the community stood on this. No matter how I would have worded it, it would have shown the same results every single time because if you boil down this whole topic to it's very base, you get practicality vs feelings. The broader area of effect always wins and in this case, it's practicality.

 

And how many who viewed it didn't vote? The ones who didn't vote, don't care enough or thought the answers were poorly worded and therefore didn't vote because they couldn't find their option.

 

But then you went to the extreme and posted two options that said the exact same thing in two different ways. So really you should have only had one option in your poll. Which means that your poll is only really good at confirming that players should waypoint, but they don't have to. Which is what everyone and their mother knew is what the majority wants.

 

The better way to post the poll would have been to narrow it down to a popular event where the issue comes up. Then you could have narrowed it down to the 2 main options (have to waypoint vs should waypoint when appropriate). Yes, there is a third, but I haven't seen ANYONE argue that players should have to sit around and wait for a rez.

 

Player behavior can't be fixed by ANet, so until the mechanics that cause this to be a problem are fixed, it will be a problem. Given how easy making money is, unless the "fee" to not waypoint gets high enough to get too close, meet, or exceed the rewards for the event the players that currently beg for rez in map chat will continue to do so. "Fee" in quotes because it doesn't necessary have to be a monetary fee.

 

Which is why gold sellers have yet to be stopped in any game where one can buy in game currency with real money. Until players stop buying from them, they'll continue to do so, no matter what ANet or other companies do to inconvenience them. Because they know they can only go so far in inconveniencing them as to not inconvenience legit players too much.

[Zacchary.6183]

> @Seera.5916 said:

> And how many who viewed it didn't vote? The ones who didn't vote, don't care enough or thought the answers were poorly worded and therefore didn't vote because they couldn't find their option.

If they refuse to vote, then their opinion means nothing to the poll and whatever it is trying to accomplish. The same goes with every other poll and election.

 

Example: Do you know what happened during the kittenstorm that was Runescape's Evolution of Combat Poll in 2012? 1/3 of the whole playerbase rioted during the BETA +poll. The poll had one option that was entirely neutral and one that was entirely negative. If the rioters actually committed to the poll and voted, EoC would have been delayed rather than launched. As such, if there really were more players who were against it, they should have voted by now. I made the instructions really clear in the OP that if you disagree with the first one to choose the second one. And if that's not good enough, there is really nothing else to be said.

 

> But then you went to the extreme and posted two options that said the exact same thing in two different ways. So really you should have only had one option in your poll. Which means that your poll is only really good at confirming that players should waypoint, but they don't have to. Which is what everyone and their mother knew is what the majority wants.

No I did not and no they don't. Its waypoint when dead vs. no (the whole argument in it's simplest form). Also that was the point of this poll: **To show who is the majority.** It did it's job as intended.

 

> The better way to post the poll would have been to narrow it down to a popular event where the issue comes up. Then you could have narrowed it down to the 2 main options (have to waypoint vs should waypoint when appropriate). Yes, there is a third, but I haven't seen ANYONE argue that players should have to sit around and wait for a rez.

And what about the other events? There are hundreds of events. To go through each one is too impractical and will accomplish nothing in the end because it is too much work.

 

> Player behavior can't be fixed by ANet, so until the mechanics that cause this to be a problem are fixed, it will be a problem. Given how easy making money is, unless the "fee" to not waypoint gets high enough to get too close, meet, or exceed the rewards for the event the players that currently beg for rez in map chat will continue to do so. "Fee" in quotes because it doesn't necessary have to be a monetary fee.

That would require an overhaul of the event system. Anet doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to overhauls, so that idea goes out the window. And this fee is going to take flak regardless of what the cost is because some people do not want to pay any cost period.

 

> Which is why gold sellers have yet to be stopped in any game where one can buy in game currency with real money. Until players stop buying from them, they'll continue to do so, no matter what ANet or other companies do to inconvenience them. Because they know they can only go so far in inconveniencing them as to not inconvenience legit players too much.

 

You are right. They can't do anything to inconvenience legit players because they are the clear majority. But we are talking about game mechanics causing conflict between two sets of people, not a small group bypassing programming to make money off of intellectual property that is not theirs. The only thing those two have in common is that there are things feeding the issues and the only way to combat them is to cut the feed without unnecessary side effects. But both need a clear majority before anything can be done and at some point someone is going to get screwed over. The point of this poll is to determine the majority so we can then find a solution that works for as many as possible.