How much do you play in a week?

[Amar]

here i thought this was a non-binding poll just to get an idea of how much time people are putting into the game. You people always have to make something dramatic out of it

[Burt]

None!

[LBaeldeth]

So far, the poll has shown that almost half of ALFA actually plays less than 10 hours a week while the clear majority play less than 20.

No, this poll shows that almost half of ALFA's Forum Participants actually play less than 10 hours a week while the clear majority of the Forum Participants play less than 20.

Not everyone in ALFA frequents the ALFA/NWN/D&D Discussion Forums, and some avoid the forums altogether. The results are skewed because the sample is only measuring those that spend time on the forums, and this forum in particular.

[Swift]

ATM, short of sending every user in the database an email survey and hoping they all reply, there is no good way of knowing how many people actually play each week and for how long.

If we ever get to NWNx2, im pretty sure it can be setup to track things like play time and the like.

[Amar]

Ever read anything on trends?

The trend from those who frequent forums will be reflected by those who do not. 95 people is definately enough to judge a trend (there are only like 50 more people who actually play anyway).

[LBaeldeth]

ATM, short of sending every user in the database an email survey and hoping they all reply, there is no good way of knowing how many people actually play each week and for how long.

Exactly.

The trend from those who frequent forums will be reflected by those who do not. 95 people is definately enough to judge a trend (there are only like 50 more people who actually play anyway).

That's akin to asking 95 people who work 8-hour days how much time they spend doing leisure activities, and then extending a trend from that sample to 50 people who only work 6-hour days. ALFA members who don't spend their free time loitering about on the forums have more time to play the game.

[Swift]

The trend from those who frequent forums will be reflected by those who do not. 95 people is definately enough to judge a trend (there are only like 50 more people who actually play anyway).

If there are only 150 players and 95 answer a poll, that is an extremely high amount, and can easily extrapolate that out with quite good accuracy.

When you see surveys in the news, they are usually extrapolated for an entire county/state/country, despite the number of respondants being typically a fraction of the number. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but for a survey to be legally considered 'factual' they only need to survey a tiny fraction of the population to resonably accurately extrapolate out and apply broadly. Of course, the smaller your sample is, the larger your margin of error can be.

If you are getting two thirds turnout to a poll, you can very safely extrapolate that, with a small margin of error.

[MorbidKate]

The trend from those who frequent forums will be reflected by those who do not. 95 people is definately enough to judge a trend (there are only like 50 more people who actually play anyway).

If there are only 150 players and 95 answer a poll, that is an extremely high amount, and can easily extrapolate that out with quite good accuracy.

When you see surveys in the news, they are usually extrapolated for an entire county/state/country, despite the number of respondants being typically a fraction of the number. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but for a survey to be legally considered 'factual' they only need to survey a tiny fraction of the population to resonably accurately extrapolate out and apply broadly. Of course, the smaller your sample is, the larger your margin of error can be.

If you are getting two thirds turnout to a poll, you can very safely extrapolate that, with a small margin of error.

Forum polls give a clue as to trends but you need to remember that there are about 1100 members who can vote and only about 200 (guessing) who actually play at all. Also, context must always be applied to any poll. I personally feel the trend in this poll is accurate enough and find it interesting that it flies in the face of what the perception was. The perception was very wrong and new guidelines might have been based on it. And that is exactly my concern.

Kate

PS Forum polls are like handing out sheets regarding possible changes in your apartment building and giving them to everyone who lives in the area to express themselves. Who lives here (plays) matters most and those server logs hold the answers.

[Swift]

Forum polls give a clue as to trends but you need to remember that there are about 1100 members who can vote and only about 200 (guessing) who actually play at all.

True, but the number of members compared to the number who play are irrelevant. I dont think anyone actually believes we still have 1100 members, and the last thing we would actually want is a whole bunch of members who tried ALFA and didnt like it to come back and sway a poll, despite not actually playing.

When i look at the number of 'members' compared to actual players in regards to a poll, i just imagine a small town, whose road sign says population 1100, despite 70+% of them being corpses in the cemetary

I personally feel the trend in this poll is accurate enough and find it interesting that it flies in the face of what the perception was. The perception was very wrong and new guidelines might have been based on it. And that is exactly my concern.

I think the fact we have managed to get some sort of 'balance' to the guidelines accepted so far, and the fact that they do not immediatelly impact a great deal of people, is somewhat vindication that the perception of ALFA the team had was, more or less, pretty close to being right.

PS Forum polls are like handing out sheets regarding possible changes in your apartment building and giving them to everyone who lives in the area to express themselves. Who lives here (plays) matters most and those server logs hold the answers.

Hence my previous analogy

[MorbidKate]

True, but the number of members compared to the number who play are irrelevant. I dont think anyone actually believes we still have 1100 members, and the last thing we would actually want is a whole bunch of members who tried ALFA and didnt like it to come back and sway a poll, despite not actually playing.Hence my previous analogy

Irrelevant? Hardly. Because to use your analogy, the corpses can still vote. And I assume duplicate IP address votes aren't cleaned out either? I'm not saying the Polls are useless because short of hard data it's all there is. The trends they show just need to be placed in context.

I believe someone once suggested the automatic deletion of unused forum membership accounts after 3 months or so? I like that idea.

Perhaps we can get a poll asking players what exact level their current character is? No ranges but specific level choices all the way to 20. That would be useful to know as well.

Kate

[darrenhfx]

Next poll should ask how much time people spend on the forums.

It is a must, must I say!

(if someone already said this, oh well, its being said again)

[MorbidKate]

Next poll should ask how much time people spend on the forums.

It is a must, must I say!

Forums? How about IRC

Kate

[Burt]

None!

fibber

Nope! Tis the truth. Aint played for nearly a month straight since my PC died.

[LBaeldeth]

When you see surveys in the news, they are usually extrapolated for an entire county/state/country, despite the number of respondants being typically a fraction of the number.

Yes, but they are very careful to make sure the sampling is random. Our sample here is limited to those that frequent the forum, and frequenting the forum can cut into game time. Additionally, those in the forums include members of various councils and teams that have work that can cut into playing time.

HDB's poll is more thorough in that it separates the options for toolsetting, DMing, Admin work, playing, and combined times for the above, but its sample is still limited to forum participants.