Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mamba" data-source="post: 9438180" data-attributes="member: 7034611">as I said repeatedly, it is not about the game not being what I would like it to be, not going through all the arguments again, there are plenty of pages on that alreadyno, again, what I would have done is completely irrelevant to this. It is about 1) their approach of asking for a rating does not give them a good idea of what that rating actually means, and the fact that the ones giving the ratings have no idea what WotC does in return to the average rating results in a pretty bad representation of what the ones polled actually would have wanted, 2) even if something made the threshold, WotC 'arbitrarily' decided to go against it in cases (they justified doing so, I just do not agree with the justification, it essentially makes it arbitrary.as I said, improve, sure, fix, we would have to see. I do not think unquestioningly assuming that WotC has this process down is a good approach. From my perspective what I want from the process and what WotC wants from the process are very different things, making it pointless for me to participate in it.I want it to lead to the identification and subsequent implementation of improvements. WotC seems to only want to verify that what they want to do does not result in complete failure again, like 4e did. Anything more than that, if it occurs, is a nice side-effect, not the goal. At least that is the conclusion I arrive at based on how they go about the playtest. The approach is good enough to avoid that, but not good for much beyond that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mamba, post: 9438180, member: 7034611"] as I said repeatedly, it is not about the game not being what I would like it to be, not going through all the arguments again, there are plenty of pages on that already no, again, what I would have done is completely irrelevant to this. It is about 1) their approach of asking for a rating does not give them a good idea of what that rating actually means, and the fact that the ones giving the ratings have no idea what WotC does in return to the average rating results in a pretty bad representation of what the ones polled actually would have wanted, 2) even if something made the threshold, WotC 'arbitrarily' decided to go against it in cases (they justified doing so, I just do not agree with the justification, it essentially makes it arbitrary. as I said, improve, sure, fix, we would have to see. I do not think unquestioningly assuming that WotC has this process down is a good approach. From my perspective what I want from the process and what WotC wants from the process are very different things, making it pointless for me to participate in it. I want it to lead to the identification and subsequent implementation of improvements. WotC seems to only want to verify that what they want to do does not result in complete failure again, like 4e did. Anything more than that, if it occurs, is a nice side-effect, not the goal. At least that is the conclusion I arrive at based on how they go about the playtest. The approach is good enough to avoid that, but not good for much beyond that. [/QUOTE]

Verification