The poll unfortunately is more biased that what I expected for… but it is what it is.
The options are really too many, I should have added less, but since the US opened a precedent, I had to include revolutionary states too.
I specified now that revolutions and minor tribes don’t count now. Maybe it’ll reduce the error.
That is suspicious… but it seems all regololar for now.
Oh well, less than 50 votes aren’t not closely enough to call the results, so we will see.
If I were you, I would throw something like Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Australia and Paraguay into a separate poll - “WHAT YOU WANT A REVOLUTION?”
These options look strange with, for example, Italy, Denmark, Austria, Prussia, Morocco or Persia.
It also seems to me that, for example, Romanians, Hungarians and Peru are also unnecessarily included in this poll - they are already options for the revolution and this is enough for them.
The only revolutions that make sense are Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and potentially Argentina. The other revolutions in the game do not have to become new civs like the US.
yeah i agree with Muty, revolution civs do little other than pollute the vote unless they are major countries afterwards. i also think extremely passive civs like Switzerland also honestly shouldn’t be an option, people only want them due to a wrong popculture understanding of them being “uninvadable” which certainly ain’t true.
there are other factions that should have been there like:
Korea
Rozvi
Maori
on the other hand i definitely dont agree with all of the comments there either, like:
This poll is biased. Many Important Asian Civs missing like Marathas, Nepalis, Sikhs, Koreans, Indonesians missing… Maker of this poll is dumb
i mean maybe the 2 last (tho i think Indonesians as a revolution is good enough) but the 3 first in particular just scream “India 2.0 3.0 and 4.0”, not to mention we already have the Sikhs.
if you like we could try to go over all of the factions missing from the current pool, and all of the irrelevant options and then maybe make a new pool with its own new topic. we just always have to keep in mind that as the poll creators we obviously have power over the choices added to the poll.
I have grouped the options from this poll:
The names in parentheses are possible other names.
The problem is, as I already said, that the US opened a precedent, and on the forum often I found people asking for civs like the brasilians and other revolutionary states.
I agree with you in what should be civs and what should be tribes or revolutions, but to avoid people who tells that a civ is missing, I preferred to just add as many as I can.
We still have the forum polls to see how what civs people want among the most “classic” ones.
I guess people want Austria as a civ. People who probably do not write posts, i.e. are silent fans of Austria, took part in the poll. The votes for Hungary could also testify to the need for Austro-Hungarian civ.
By Egypt’s high score, I mean the people want an Arab civ (this could be a civ based on the Omani Empire and Mamluk Sultanate).
Maybe they meant the Balkan revolutions. It would make perfect sense.
Errors happen in big polls. I should have kept the first question smaller, or not add it all.
The individual rating sistem seems to be a bit better, but even there the long questionnaire makes people less interested in answering carefully to all answers.
Believe me, I studied this things, it’s pretty common that people sometimes answer randomly.
the thing is the people who votes those are also the ones who:
downvoted Italy, Poland and Denmark (all negatively up by 10-20 votes in “1”) as an example italy currently sits at a score of 2.48, when at 22 votes they had somewhere around 3.8, all 3 factions used to have scores 3-4.
upvoted Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria, who all went from 0-2 “5” votes to around 20, like i dont like those people have any clue about what they are saying or asking for or about the history of litterally any of the faction, hell there is a guy that answered Czechoslovakia, like i hope we all can agree that no, that is not going to happen.
all of this just gives an indication that the people voting for that are probably either the same or someone who shared it specifically to tilt the vote in that favor since the answers are all so similar with so “random” choices.
Yeah, it’s always the same problem.
If you put only the most likely civ to be introduced, you get salt for being biased.
If you put everything that is at least doable, you get absurd answers…
Yeah, there is a bit of nationalism, which I understand to some point…
But Czechoslovakia didn’t exist at the time…
There have been a big problem with the poll.
The option allow only 1 answer" wasn’t activated.
It’s my mistake, I was sure to have it activated, but this may also explain why some votes completely changed overnight.
It might not be because people do it on purpose, or it might even not be the case at all, but still, this problem makes the poll unreliable.
I already close the poll, and made a new one with the option toggled, you can recognize the new one because it’s red.
The new poll is identical to the old one.
Despite everything, I decided to not change the options, for fairness of those who already voted.
New link:
Absurd xDDDDD
If anyone wants Czech / Czechoslovakia, then let it be a revolution option, not a civ xDDD
Yeah, but as I said, there has been a problem with the poll, I reset it.
Thw old data aren’t lost, but I gathering them from the start again.
Remember to vote on the new poll, even if you already voted in the old Google poll, do it again.
If an error appears, saying that you already voted, then don’t worry.
so looking at the poll atm (only 8 votes but still) the leaders are:
Persia with a score of 4.625 (very impressive)
Danes with a score for both of 3.875
Italians with a score of 3.75
other high scores are: Morocco, Poles, Omani and Siam
bottom dwellers are again the colonial factions, to no ones susprise i think.
it is a little sad there aren’t more votes on African/natives factions i think, surely Congo could provide a basis for something cool, but obviously not in the near future.
This poll is getting votes way slower than the other. It might be a coincidence, but it also make me think that some people did vote multiple times in the other one, maybe even by mistake.
Well,the players already got Ethiopia or not?
I agree,an African civ (Morocco,Kongo or Zulues),then in the European dlc (Italy and Poland-Lithuania),then Denmark,then an Asian dlc (Persia and Korea),then Oman,then a South American dlc (Mapuches and Tupies) and finally a Southeast Asian dlc (Siam and Vietnam) to then close the game with a flourish a dlc from Oceania (Maories and Hawaii) with the possibility of putting Tonga…
i dont really get why a European DLC wouldn’t just be all 3 factions together, it seems kinda weird to split them up.
Yes,in fact the expansions of aoe 3 were of 3 factions,but since the lauch of aoe 3 DE they began to release dlcs of only 2 civs for the whole saga,but they do it so that the content lasts them longer over time…
that has a lot to do with the factions they added, african DLC was:
2 factions with:
100% unique architecture
100% unique roster
several new natives and mercenary units (idk how many, but i think 20ish)
new mechanics
what European factions likely would come with:
1 of the already existing architecture (Poles eastern, Danes western, Italians southern) perhaps with a building or 2 unique to them.
3-6 unique units (i mean in theory something like Denmark could have 10 unique units, but realistically half is more likely)
some new natives and mercenaries, but likely a lot less than what Africa got (idk 15 units here doesn’t seem super unlikely?)
relatively standard mechanics all things considered, even if they have unique age up mechanics or what have you.
like i think the devs straight up said the reason they only released 2 factions is due to the amount of effort each faction takes to make, esp in the architecture area.