Prelimenary results

Date sent:  17-DEC-1996 15:35:06 
Answers

Just the Means so far, but here is how it looks.

>Please send your answers as a single line with 5 for agree and 1 for
>disagree (3 for neutral). Answer all questions putting 3 if you don't
care,
>or would prefer not to answer. Use a leading space to separate the
>answers (this is so that I can copy and paste the results directly into
>SPSS). I'll post any significant findings to the list.

OK. I recoded the answers into -2 to +2 range, as this puts 0 as
neutral.

Variability means just that, that the scores were varied. The smaller
the
variability, the more significant the results. I only had 18 responses,
so
the variability had to be low for a good result. Take 4 score for
example. -2, -2, +2, +2 has more variability than -2, -1, 1, 2 even
though
the mean is still 0.

>Now for the Questions (some of these are for my own interest);

Valid
Variable      Mean    Std Dev	Minimum   Maximum      N

>1.) I Would like to see a new version of FT
FT1	      -.83	 1.25	     -2 	2     18

>2.) A batterys are too powerful
FT2	       .67	 1.08	     -2 	2     18

>3.) C batterys are too weak
FT3	      -.11	 1.13	     -2 	2     18

>4.) Capitals are too powerful
FT4	      -.33	  .97	     -2 	2     18

>5.) Swarms of Escorts are too powerful
FT5	      -.33	  .84	     -2 	1     18

>6.) Fighters are too powerful
FT6	      -.22	  .88	     -2 	1     18

>7.) I prefer realistic movement
FT7	      -.11	 1.28	     -2 	2     18

>8.) I would like to have ships balanced by mass
FT8	      -.11	 1.41	     -2 	2     18

>9.) I would be against any change in the core rules
FT9	      1.00	 1.37	     -2 	2     18

>10.) I would like to see more systems
FT10	       .89	 1.37	     -2 	2     18

>11.) I would like more powerful weapons
FT11	      -.67	  .97	     -2 	1     18

>12.) The Kra'Vak are too powerful
FT12	      1.17	  .71	      0 	2     18

>13.) The Svasku are too powerful
FT13	      -.28	  .67	     -2 	1     18

>14.) The standard ships are too weak
FT14	      -.28	  .89	     -2 	1     18

>15.) I use optional rules in my games (1)=never (5)=always
FT15	      1.28	  .89	     -1 	2     18

>16.) I use a large table (3)=4'x6' (5)=8'x10'+ (1)=2'x2'-
>17.) I use (1)=inch (5)=cm
FT16	       .22	  .88	     -1 	2     18
FT17	      -.56	 1.92	     -2 	2     18

>18.) I am a big SF fan
FT18	      1.39	  .78	      0 	2     18

>19.) I would like to see 'fleet books' for the 'official' background
FT19	       .89	 1.02	     -1 	2     18

>20.) The problems in FT demand a reworking of the core rules.
FT20	     -1.56	  .70	     -2 	0     18

Generally, only a score who is greater than the variability can be said
to
have any significance. So that would be 12, 15, 18 and 20. However, 
Neutral views can be significant too, especially 13 which has the lowest
variability. (or is it just that no-one plays Svasku?)

I think we can say that the core rules do not need rewriting, but that
optional rules that you can use or discard as you wish are in great
demand.

Oh yes, and us SF fans think the Kra'Vak are too powerful.

All the balance problems seemed to get bellow average scores (negative
values). This means that in general people think that the balance
problems
we talk about do not exist, are balanced by other factors, or are simply
not
important.

Comparing 10 and 11 also confirms what I suspected. People like extra
gadgets to play with, but do not want more powerful weapons.

+-------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Adam Delafield, I.T. Officer	      | Bolton Institute,  |
| #include "witty_saying"	      | Eagle Tower,	   |
| E-mail : ad4@Bolton.ac.uk	      | College Way,	   |
| Phone  : +44 1204 528851 (ext 3163) | Bolton, UK.	   |
| Fax	 : +44 1204 399074	      | BL3 5AE.	   |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------+