MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Choosing the subclass at first is the best part of the sorcerer. Not a bug, not even a feature, but rather the whole point.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D (2024) Class spell lists and pact magic are back!
- Thread starter Neonchameleon
- Start date
Chaosmancer
Legend
No, it doesn't. Again, for the sample size of the survey alone, 10 people is 0.00025%. Statistical numbers are hard, so lets try something to give you a perspective on that. The odds of being born with detectable hearing loss in one or more ears is 0.003%. That is over TEN TIMES more statistically significant than a population of ten amongst 40 thousand.
A sample size of ten, in this context, is meaningless. It is FAR too small a sample size to determine ANYTHING.
See, this is where you keep stumbling. Yes, of course we expect the poll to be misunderstood by some people. That's blatantly obvious. Not because it is flawed, but because PEOPLE are flawed. I recently in training for my new position had a guy I was communicating with who didn't know his own boss's job title. I've seen people put in OTHER people's names when asked for a name. I, myself, have stood up from a chair, walked into a room, and forgotten why I did so. You wouldn't expect someone my age to forget something like that without a serious mental concern right? Except we know it happens ALL THE TIME. To everyone.
Someone, somewhere, for some reason is always going to misunderstand your question. Always.
By doing what? Creating a new survey, with untested methods, and asking that survey to rank people's perceptions of their own understanding? To hire hundreds of thousands of people to go and, in person, talk to people who have taken or seen these surveys? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars should WoTC throw at this because you think there might be a problem, because you found a bare handful of people who misunderstood something?
You remember when you mentioned Light Bulb testing? You said something about testing 10 bulbs. I can't find a modern example, but here's an older picture. This is the type of testing that they ACTUALLY did.
Which, you may note, is more than 10.
What evidence is available? The fact that you think they took it as a no? That isn't evidence. And I don't need to provide "counter-evidence" to a non-evidenciary claim. Right now you are doing the equivalent of declaring that Ford doesn't know how to design trucks, because you know you found a stupid flaw in their trucks, and your buddy agreed with you. Why would anyone take that sort of claim seriously? I shouldn't have to do more than point out how ridiculously successful they are to call into question that they are incompetents who don't know what they are doing.
I don't know how many people fill out the text box. 5% would still get them two thousand written responses, which seems like more than the total number of users on this entire site. And, it also feels incredibly low.
What do they do in cases there isn't written responses? They follow their data processing process. And until you can explain to me, in detail, why that process is flawed, I see no reason to assume it must be flawed.
You claim they are incompetent. Incapable of doing their jobs, after a decade of wild success. My claim is that, since they have seen wild success, and have been seeing that success for a decade.... they likely are not incompetent. That is still logic. I've explained my reasoning. I don't need internal documents, secret data files, or to interview a hundred thousand people to know that Wizards of the Coast is one of the most successful RPG companies of all time, and that 5e DnD is their most successful product line.
Right, so those things which were not playtested and were not surveyed and had a rating of 20% do not reflect upon the playtest and survey process. That process can only start AFTER the initial release. So stop bringing them up like they prove your point.
Chaosmancer
Legend
Okay. In which official document did WoTC outline what percentage value they assign to Strongly Disapprove, Disapprove, Approve, and Strongly Approve? Where did they specify that they look at each as a line item instead of as a cohesive whole? Do you have information on how rating the class itself compares to the average rating of the class abilities and how that discreprancy is resolved? Are they averaged? Is any of this information weighted? Do they do a comparison of how something like Weapon Mastery is received across multiple classes, and consider it in that context, or do they look at it solely on an individual class basis? Do they consider any comparative analysis between classes?
Do you know ANY of this? Or is it enough that they say "the ranger got above a 70% approval rate" and you can just assume that means they are flattening the data into "therefore 70% of people said yes and 30% said no"
Right, you just assume 70% was a randomly chosen number, because any percentage would have the same meaning. They could not have POSSIBLY used logic to determine why a 70% approval rating was a good cut-off.
Additionally, you, obviosuly a professional game designer with a decade of experience and long history of using surveys to poll the public and compare that data against your internal playtesting team, can see no reason to believe that the data of supermajority approval of a product can reliably translate into a well-designed product.
Or maybe, you are asking the wrong question. Maybe WoTC, in wanting to make a well-designed and popular game... is more concerned with appeal of their product than whether any possible idea they have warrants further experimentation. Because, fundamentally, EVERY idea warrants further experimentation. They've never released an idea that didn't warrant it, because any idea that bad never even got to us.
mamba
Legend
as I said, you cannot extrapolate, but since you detected this in that small a sample size, it is worth looking into. You are simply wrong to dismiss it, just because the sample is small.
It works the other way, if in a sample of 10 I find no issues, then the sample was too small to safely say that there is no problem. If in this little sample I find a problem already, then you better look into it.
What percentage do we expect to stumble? Should we maybe work on making it harder to misunderstand the survey?
but how many do can certainly vary, and be influenced by the questions and available answers
Sure, because a sample size of 10 is too small to reliably detect a problem, it's just that we already managed despite the small size. If we had a thousand and found the problem, it still would be a problem, we just managed to do so in 10 already.
Do you think they would say 'oh, it is only 10 out of the 1000 bulbs, we can ignore that'?
I gave a rationale, you are basically saying 'you have motive, you have opportunity, you have circumstantial evidence, but you have no DNA at the crime scene, so it could have been anyone'. I have no access to the proverbial crime scene... If you want to dispute the circumstantial evidence, be my guest.
sure, but it still pales in comparison to all responses, and the % is the aggregate of all of them, so the few written opinions have only a small influence on the result
yeah, that is your claim, but 'unfortunately' correlation is not the same as causation, so you still will have to show that this is due to how great the playtest is working
No more or less than mine, or rather, if anything it is less so, because you are not making a case like I did, you just make a claim. And yet you are very comfortable with dismissing mine. Guess I feel the same way about yours.
I doubt we will get to an agreement here. How about we turn this around? Why are you so opposed to improving the process? After all that is all I am asking for here... Let's see if we can agree on something here...
1) What is WotC really interested in answering? To me it is A) do you like this idea better than what we have today (nevermind the balancing)? B) Do you like the execution enough for us to add it as is, or does it need improvement?
Do you agree / disagree? If you disagree, what are they looking for?
2) Are the current options we can choose from the best way to answer the questions that WotC wants answers for? To me that is a resounding 'no', let's see what you have to say
Last edited:
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
You making a joke doesn't equate with a response. Yes, what you're calling munchkins is in fact a shared group with optimizers. Here is how you described them, "the group who will react negatively to any slight to their absolute power builds" How does that description not also describe someone who is optimizing? What does "absolute power builds" mean if it's not a synonym for optimized builds?
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
You do realize that your research there is entirely irrelevant, right? You can replace lightbulb with just about anything else, because the key part wasn't lightbulb, it was 1 failure out of 10.
You and I don't have the larger sample. WoTC does. What you have is conjecture based around your opinion.
You and I can't speak for WotC. That's conjecture based around your opinion.
That's what makes it an outlier or one-off. If it wasn't an outlier or one-off WotC would see that in the overall metric. Capturing a one-off is just lucky coincidence. The math behind statistics doesn't support the the conjecture you've based around your opinion.
I explained either earlier here or in another thread (I forget which) how a neutral response can be approximated. Answering a survey but not answering a question indicates no strong opinion on that feature one way or the other. Wotc can see that information.
The reality is that we do not have access to the survey results or how those results are being used. You don't know that anything is flawed because you don't have the information to make that assessment. Conjecture and speculation are not facts. A person (such as you) cannot claim those flaws exist because you don't have evidence to back those claims up. Repeating yourself won't change that. This is a facts over feelings discussion at this point.
This seems like it's gotten extremely off topic so I'm moving away from it.
ON TOPIC:
Pact magic is back. I prefer that so I can appreciate that response.
Spell lists are back. I preferred spell lists until bards were given a choice of list and I was warming up to the arcane/divine/primal spell lists at that point.
No it is not. We are talking about a group selfishly weapon using the survey and playtest process . Shaping the playtest is an element incapable of being part of optimizing a character build.tgst is certainly not something the survey weighting should be providing an over 200% amplification to.
Last edited:
mamba
Legend
they have more filled out surveys, they have no way of telling who filled it out wrong, so no, they have no sample at all
I never said I spoke for them, but my ‘conjecture’ is on more solid ground than your claim that they somehow understand what you meant regardless of which option you chose
how do you know that unless you have a larger sample that shows this?
how would they detect that?
It simply shows up as a different percentage than what it otherwise would have been
sure, but that is neither here nor there, if you do not answer a question, you do not influence that result
Do you think they rate that as 50% (or really any arbitrary percentage)? That would be influencing the result, clearly they should not do this since you do not care either way
agreed, not facts, but I’d say it is much stronger reasoning than anything I heard from you. Until you have anything at all, that will not change
alright then, feel free to stay away
Last edited:
Similar Threads
