Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9068078" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yeah, this sounds pretty much like the concern I raised at the time. That is, this data set actually does deviate in a noteworthy number of ways (for example, dwarf has gone from &quot;not even in the top 5&quot; to third place, while dragonborn, which had been just behind humans, elves, and half-elves, has fallen quite far) from data we've gotten from DDB in the past.I strongly suspect a significant portion of these scraped characters are eithera) not active/&quot;real&quot; characters, but just tests/mockups/practiceb) DM-made NPCs or other characters that are &quot;real&quot; in the sense of being used, but not truly being playedc) not even remotely serious, e.g. the ones with all 0s for stats, and thus junk dataAIUI, no data filtering was done on the data set. It was taken exactly as is. That's an issue I raised when this was initially brought up, and the creator was both brave and honest enough to make an account and respond. I have no ill will toward them, but I genuinely believe that the data in this set doesn't really tell us much of anything. It certainly doesn't actually tell us things like &quot;nobody actually likes playing Wizards&quot; or &quot;people actually really do love the Fighter exactly the way it is and you shouldn't change ANYTHING about it because they would definitely hate any other alternative.&quot; Which...yeah, I've already seen people literally come to that conclusion in different words.Given they already tried that with the &quot;complex&quot; Fighter they gave us and it sucked and wasn't even really a Warlord, I'm going to have to ask your forgiveness for having a piss-poor opinion of that particular &quot;compromise.&quot;Nope. Unless and until we actually get a real, well-constructed survey (something WotC is not willing to pay the money to do), we don't at all know that. Indeed, we know nothing of the kind, and the only people who might potentially know--WotC themselves--are absolutely not ever going to give us the data we would need to verify any claims they themselves make.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9068078, member: 6790260"] Yeah, this sounds pretty much like the concern I raised at the time. That is, this data set actually does deviate in a noteworthy number of ways (for example, dwarf has gone from "not even in the top 5" to third place, while dragonborn, which had been just behind humans, elves, and half-elves, has fallen quite far) from data we've gotten from DDB in the past. I strongly suspect a significant portion of these scraped characters are either a) not active/"real" characters, but just tests/mockups/practice b) DM-made NPCs or other characters that are "real" in the sense of being [I]used[/I], but not truly being [I]played[/I] c) not even remotely serious, e.g. the ones with all 0s for stats, and thus junk data AIUI, no data filtering was done on the data set. It was taken exactly as is. That's an issue I raised when this was initially brought up, and the creator was both brave and honest enough to make an account and respond. I have no ill will toward them, but I genuinely believe that the data in this set doesn't really tell us much of anything. It [I]certainly[/I] doesn't actually tell us things like "nobody actually likes playing Wizards" or "people actually really do love the Fighter exactly the way it is and you shouldn't change ANYTHING about it because they would definitely hate any other alternative." Which...yeah, I've already seen people literally come to that conclusion in different words. Given they already tried that with the "complex" Fighter they gave us [I]and it sucked and wasn't even really a Warlord[/I], I'm going to have to ask your forgiveness for having a piss-poor opinion of that particular "compromise." Nope. Unless and until we actually get a real, well-constructed survey (something WotC is not willing to pay the money to do), we don't at all know that. Indeed, we know nothing of the kind, and the only people who [I]might potentially[/I] know--WotC themselves--are absolutely not ever going to give us the data we would need to verify any claims they themselves make. [/QUOTE]

Verification