Having just received a survey on recent events on my main world, i thought i'd throw some comments on it here... The questions were often misleading. For example
"Do you like set buildings (like the winter village?)"
Actual answer : I like set buildings, but didn't like the winter village as a specific example - It wasn't sufficiently powerful for how attainable pieces were and consequently i pretty much skipped the event on my main world. I answered 'neither agree/disagree'.
"Do you like upgradable buildings (the 7 level pillar and grand bridge given as examples)"
Well I like the examples... but conceptually they don't thrill me and I'd get rather sick of them if they became the norm or watered down. It's also certainly not "because they were upgradable" that i liked them. They did at least somewhat address the all-or-nothing aspect by creating breakpoints where you might build them despite not completing them (Level 5 Pillar... Level anything bridge IF you needed the happiness)
"What prizes do you most like to see in events?"
The categories were rather terrible. i.e. "Shrines and Luck-based buildings" - There is 1 shrine I like to see. and 2 shrines and a wishing well that i can think of in the category that I don't care if I see - so should i have selected the category, or not? I went with not. I mostly took the opportunity to stress that space-efficiency was the relevant criteria in the "other" box supplied on this question as any building category COULD be of interest "if it's good".
A few agree/disagree statements wrt randomness nature of events :
They danced around the issue of all-or-nothing. I don't mind there being an element of randomness - it's nice to have some aspect of the event to analyze and choose a path. I do mind low odds of reaching a point I consider worthwhile coupled with the consolation prizes being lumps of coal and smelly socks.
Overall the survey seemed to be looking for perspectives on grand-design questions while ignoring the nuances that have made some recent events feel less worthwhile and more skippable than others in the past.
"Do you like set buildings (like the winter village?)"
Actual answer : I like set buildings, but didn't like the winter village as a specific example - It wasn't sufficiently powerful for how attainable pieces were and consequently i pretty much skipped the event on my main world. I answered 'neither agree/disagree'.
"Do you like upgradable buildings (the 7 level pillar and grand bridge given as examples)"
Well I like the examples... but conceptually they don't thrill me and I'd get rather sick of them if they became the norm or watered down. It's also certainly not "because they were upgradable" that i liked them. They did at least somewhat address the all-or-nothing aspect by creating breakpoints where you might build them despite not completing them (Level 5 Pillar... Level anything bridge IF you needed the happiness)
"What prizes do you most like to see in events?"
The categories were rather terrible. i.e. "Shrines and Luck-based buildings" - There is 1 shrine I like to see. and 2 shrines and a wishing well that i can think of in the category that I don't care if I see - so should i have selected the category, or not? I went with not. I mostly took the opportunity to stress that space-efficiency was the relevant criteria in the "other" box supplied on this question as any building category COULD be of interest "if it's good".
A few agree/disagree statements wrt randomness nature of events :
They danced around the issue of all-or-nothing. I don't mind there being an element of randomness - it's nice to have some aspect of the event to analyze and choose a path. I do mind low odds of reaching a point I consider worthwhile coupled with the consolation prizes being lumps of coal and smelly socks.
Overall the survey seemed to be looking for perspectives on grand-design questions while ignoring the nuances that have made some recent events feel less worthwhile and more skippable than others in the past.