1  |   Order by index

Jul 22, 2003, 11:22pm

1.) What are the most needed features for future releases
2.) What type of features are most needed? (building features, world
features, server features, etc.)
3.) Does GUI need any changes? How much does it need? What kind of specific
GUI changes do you have in mind?
4.) Does Active Worlds need any significant advertising?
5.) In what direction should Active Worlds be headed for? (E-commerce
business, gaming business, etc.)
6.) What type of new AWI world do you have in mind? Should it be public
building? Or should it be a gaming world? Or what? (Examples of these
includes Alphaworld for public building and The13th for entertainment world
and Mutation for gaming)
7.) What can Activeworlds Inc. do to increase revenue? How can they attract
new customers?
8.) Should Activeworlds Inc. increase size of existing public building
world? For example, Colony Alpha has been full for a while.
9.) Should Activeworlds Inc. update other public building world's (other
than Alphaworld, for that look for previous poll conducted earlier here)
object path with new objects, textures, etc.
10.) Should Activeworlds Inc. release some more object libraries including
COFMeta's and other for worldbuilder's use? (I'm still waiting for The13th
object libraries lol)

*imitating Porky the Pig, sttuttering*

That's all Folks!


NOTICE

Please note this is unofficial Activeworlds poll and is not in any way
affilated or whatever with Activeworlds Inc. This is only designed to assess
general opinon of Activeworld residents on limited numbers of issues. This
unoffical poll was created by me with interest in what your opinon is about
certain issues. This is an interesting poll that may offer insights into
general opinon of Activeworlds residents. Once again, neither is this poll
an
official poll nor am I in any way connected with Activeworlds Inc. You have
rights to not respond to it or whatsoever obviously. Also please notice that
this poll will not guarantee these features and other that you suggested
will be implemented. Thank you for reading and responding to it.

--
Legion

"I think, therefore I am" - Rene Descartes,
17th-century French philosopher, Earth

Jul 23, 2003, 12:10am

1) All of them, including allof the featurs that should be part of the
browser but are instead incorporated into bots. EXAMPLE: Backing up a world.
Also, have graphics ratings as well as content ratings so a world with
extremely high amounts of polys can be distinguished from one with few.
Improved graphics, as well as improved rendering.
2) The improved world list which they offered in the feature vote, as well
as a terrain grid based on quarter cells instead of cells (which allows for
more detailed terrain). A lot more. Examples: Custom AVs, improved world,
universe etc. server interfaces, cells which include vertical coordinates
(cube shaped instead of the entire height, this would potentially reduce lag
while at the same time improved building), enroachment formulas based on the
actual edges of an object and not it's center, even more.
3) The GUI is pretty good. Skins would be nice. It could be easier, and have
more options.
4) Yes, much. The more people the better.
5) As open-ended and free as possible. No corruption, proper services
(example: a GOOD GK service. And AW don't reply saying that they are
volunteers so your not complaining, believe me, there are a LOT of better
people who would volunteer if they could or there was a better program).
More possibilities. The ability to make avatars do anything, have items and
such, kind of like an RPG since that's kind of what AW sort of is.
6) Mutation is crap. None of the bots nor AW software is advanced enough for
proper gaming worlds. We need a well organised public building world where
there is as much land as AW, except vandalism is controlled. Making seed
objects MUST be built into the browser.
7) AW can advertise like mad, do fundraising, and come out with a
well-balanced pricing plan. So far all the price hike has done is gotten rid
of many people who make the AW experience better. Maybe different prices
plans and options for citizenships. EXAMPLE: $20 a year for a limited
citizenship where you are not allowed to own worlds or something and more
disadvantages. $50/year for a citizenship where you get normal citizenship
benefits. $90/year for a premium citizenship where you get access to a
special world or something you normally would have to pay to enter. Also,
reduced world prices would be good. It would encourage people to buy MORE
worlds. Most of all, the ability to CHARGE for entry into a world (I know it
sounds stupid, but read on). You would pay a little extra moeny for
permission to do this. It would encourage premium citizenships, as well as
encouraging higher quality worlds which are larger and can hold more users,
because people would have more money for better worlds, and even try to make
a profit, which would incite competion among worlds and more improvements
and spending on worlds. It would have to be regulated however, or else ALL
world owners would be charging, which would be ludicrous and kill the entire
software. There are a million other things AW could do.
8) Yes, definately. If they got moere money they could have larger servers
and be able to accomadate worlds which are 50000NESW. if many more people
were building this would allow worlds such as AW to continue to have the
same atmosphere as well as accomadate everyone.
9) YES, absolutely. It keeps the AW world thriving to have many different
diverse worlds which are up-to-date.
10) Possibly, but they definately should hire some professional 3D artists
to make objects so that AW would look much better. Also professional texture
artists, beacuse honestly... many of the current textures are absolutely
horrible and ugly.

There is SOOOOOOOO much that could be done to improve AW.

[View Quote]

Oct 6, 2003, 5:36pm

> 1.) What are the most needed features for future releases

A more gaming oriented aspect to AW, as well as basic browser
enhancements. Physics, possibly for "riding" vehicles. Scripted
objects would be nice as well. To give the builder more control
over what happens in worlds. Possibly an AW Plugin Interface.

> 2.) What type of features are most needed? (building features, world
> features, server features, etc.)

Didn't I just answer this?

> 3.) Does GUI need any changes? How much does it need? What kind of
specific
> GUI changes do you have in mind?

Skinable GUI's would be a great add-on. If they implimented the
AWPlugin
interface like I mentioned above. A user could add their own support
for this.
Getting developers more involved with the program changes itself is an
important
aspect in improving software, and the application market in general.

> 4.) Does Active Worlds need any significant advertising?

They need to advance in the middle of 3d online chatting, and also into
the gaming
portion of the market. If they added more 3d engine features, they
could possibly
make a comeback. If they stay with this "old" engine. They might as
well just release
atari to xbox fans.

> 5.) In what direction should Active Worlds be headed for? (E-commerce
> business, gaming business, etc.)

As I mentioned above, Gaming/Chat/E-Business.

> 6.) What type of new AWI world do you have in mind? Should it be public
> building? Or should it be a gaming world? Or what? (Examples of these
> includes Alphaworld for public building and The13th for entertainment
world
> and Mutation for gaming)

No more entertainment worlds, they have a very short interest span to
older users.
Maybe some sort of building/gaming world? If a world is to be popular,
its going
to need a extended interest to the users.

> 7.) What can Activeworlds Inc. do to increase revenue? How can they
attract
> new customers?

Attack the gaming market, and expand the software!

> 8.) Should Activeworlds Inc. increase size of existing public building
> world? For example, Colony Alpha has been full for a while.

There is plenty of space in AW still. Maybe one more building world
would be
useful though.

> 9.) Should Activeworlds Inc. update other public building world's (other
> than Alphaworld, for that look for previous poll conducted earlier here)
> object path with new objects, textures, etc.

They should upgrade their engine, to handle higher poly counts/increase
framerates.

> 10.) Should Activeworlds Inc. release some more object libraries including
> COFMeta's and other for worldbuilder's use? (I'm still waiting for The13th
> object libraries lol)

The really old object paths should be open to builders, but that is my
opinion.

Oct 6, 2003, 6:12pm

We definately need a terrain/attribute/property backup built into the
browser.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 6, 2003, 6:14pm

and higher definition textures

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 6, 2003, 8:51pm

Not accessible for Non-CTs though.

[View Quote]

Oct 6, 2003, 9:33pm

well... maybe not, or maybe so. I guess the CT of the certain world would
decide.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

Oct 6, 2003, 10:03pm

I don't think higher resolution textures would be a great upgrade. Currently
there is no limit on the texture size you can use although that dosen't
necissarily mean they are displayed that way. This in mind, many AW users
are on lower end machines and some still use software drivers to browse AW,
I definetly don't think that their computers could handle the extra load put
on by using high res textures.


[View Quote]

Oct 6, 2003, 10:35pm

true... but in two years any computer will be able to handle it. Seriously,
this is my computer:

700MHz Athlon
640MB SDRAM (128MB PC100, 512MB PC133)
80GB Hard Drive
Sound Blaster Live!
Geforce 2 MX 440 32MB

and I can handle games on high quality mode, though occasionally the lack of
video memory kills it.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index