DDI Survey Results posted

[Lanefan]

Uh, have you seen the hybrid class article? It really seems to me to be a signal that they heard the folks that want more traditional dual class like mechanics. It really seems like a zig right when they were zagging. Sorta like the 'design' isn't quite... uh... set in stone yet. Almost like they're listening to what people want and trying to adjust a bit.

A bit, perhaps; but I'd be asking about mu-uch deeper design decisions:

- why is there such a jump from commoner/minion to level-1
- why has the sense of mystery been removed (via putting so much info in the PH)
- what prompted the massive abandonment of long-held and popular fantasy tropes e.g. just about anything Tolkein-based
- why squares and square circles instead of feet/meters and geometry
- why d20 for everything when other dice can sometimes be more useful
- why so rules-heavy

And so on. But like I said, I suspect these are more things to ask the 5e designers while things are at the root-design level...

Lan-"I had more questions than these about 3e"-efan

 

[Mistwell]

They never actually said what they're working on specifically.

Yes, they do. It's a short article, and it ends with a specific list of "This includes...". Hard to read that as "not specific".

They didn't actually say if they are or aren't going to ever finish the original Dungeon Builder, Virtual Tabletop, or Character Visualizer.

That was not the question. Why would you expect them to answer a different question than the one asked?

It's a pretty generic 'trust us' response with plenty of wiggle room for them to drop elements of the original DDI plans.

No, it's not. Again, hard to read it that way unless you are just ignoring the "this includes" sentence. They are pretty specific.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Lan-"I thought there were more questions in that survey"-efan

There were, and I wonder what the negatives they got were...

I mean, its good that they showed some of the data they gleaned from the survey, but withholding data from other questions? That tells me they may have gotten data they didn't like at all.

 

[Agamon]

Uh, have you seen the hybrid class article? It really seems to me to be a signal that they heard the folks that want more traditional dual class like mechanics. It really seems like a zig right when they were zagging. Sorta like the 'design' isn't quite... uh... set in stone yet. Almost like they're listening to what people want and trying to adjust a bit.

Actually, I think they've been working on this for quite some time. They mentioned in a pre-4e podcast that they were working on 2 kinds of multiclassing, one that dips into class (what made the PHB) and one that takes powers from two classes. That said, they obviously decided to work more on a workable version of the hybrid idea, thanks likely in some part to what the fanbase asked for.

 

[Derren]

This must mean that WOTC... [gasp] ...listens to their customers sometimes?

Except that what they want to do (more monsters, encounters, maps & adventures) has nothing to do with what they asked for and what the customers responded (managment tools, creation tools, etc.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah, I wonder what the % was on the question of "Do you trust Wizards to produce quality digital products in a prompt manner?"

The answer is hidden, but there: They don't give any dates or timelines.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There were, and I wonder what the negatives they got were...

I think there was only one "negative" that was interesting here - the one where they asked if they trust WotC to release online offerings on time (or something like that).

I can't believe they got an all too optimistic answer there.

---

Did anyone take the DMG survey that was up a few weeks ago?

 

[Bagpuss]

This must mean that WOTC... [gasp] ...listens to their customers sometimes?

What will the naysayers think?

About time they did? Seriously they have been working on the Gametable and Character Visualiser applications for how long when they are the least desired items on the survey?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

You mean something like this:

Based on our analysis of the survey data and customer feedback, we have already begun work on applications for your campaigns. This includes monsters, encounters, maps and adventures.
​

Yeah, I read that, but what does that translate into? Tabletop?

If so, is that a sure thing that that will be the next application developed? Or is there room for them to do a different application? What HAVE they told us here, really?


I mean, what isn't covered under monsters, encounters, maps, and adventures except for characters (with character builder already out).


It's as though they've said "We got it. Work on the rest of the stuff we have to accomplish and you're less interested in our developing an application we've already completed."


I do give them a (small) kudos for releasing (some) of the survey. But really, I don't feel particularly "listened to" based upon this action of theirs. All I get is that now they are going to do something that I got the impression they were already going to do. Also, they haven't really told us anything new regarding how that translates to Insider directly.

 

[joethelawyer]

There were, and I wonder what the negatives they got were...

I mean, its good that they showed some of the data they gleaned from the survey, but withholding data from other questions? That tells me they may have gotten data they didn't like at all.

In my experience, the main purpose of marketing surveys is to cover ass and justify decisions you've already made by picking and choosing certain results and interpreting them certain ways, based on plans and/or financial restraints/requirements you already have in place.