I know but... e-tool = crap

[CRGreathouse]

To think that you, or anyone, could "crank out" a better version than this is simple hubris.

This is deceptive and factually incorrect. There are many who could do a better job than what Fluid did, given time and money. The six-month figure looks too low to me, given what I know about the scope of the project, but surely it's possible given more people and time.

I'm not spealking from ignorance - I know many of the programmers on these boards, and I've done a fair bit of D&D programming myself. My generators (dragon, stat block, et. al.) too under 200 hours of coding - imagine what I could have done with more than 3-4 fulltime weeks!

Jamis Buck made an NPC generator soon after 3E was released, and it incorporates many of the features in eTools. Luke's RPM may not be as user-friendly (now), but it has more raw power and adaptability. PCGen has data from dozens of 3rd party companies. Twin Rose's Campaign Suite is powerful, extremely adaptable, and purely data-driven. What makes you think no one could make a better version? With the exception of the last software package, these were all done by people in their free time. With full time it would be (I daresay) trivial.

 

[Fast Learner]

I think we've just run into a definition problem, that's all. For some of us "crank out" is basically the same as "whip out," while for others it seems to mean "work over a period of time without the work being too deep."

I generally hear "crank out" as the former, and the reality is that none of the programmers here, me included, could "crank out" a better eTools in 20 hours or even 200 hours. That's how I read "crank out."

If you use the latter definition, then most of us would agree, I think. That is, it's not a deep technical puzzle, but it would take 1,000 hours or so, depending on skill.

 

[Vicegrip]

[[ That is, it's not a deep technical puzzle, but it would take 1,000 hours or so, depending on skill. ]]
--That's how I was using it for the most part, as I tried to clarify earlier. I'm used to working in a business environment, where the challenges are never that great, and all the blocking factors are political and monetary, rather than technical, so to me just being able to work at something unhindered is a seriously cool situtation.

 

[Lazarus Smith]

Okay, a clarification is in order:

By "crank out", I do indeed mean the definition that includes hurried, un-thought out work.

I do not intend to demean ANYONES programming skills but my own.

Given enough time, I'm sure you guys could create something far better that E-Tools (especially if some people, not all, put aside ego and worked together). I am just saying that this will probably never happen, because each of us has to put food on the table, and since nobody right now is paying you to create this hot new software, it isn't getting created.

Would I like to see what you guys could create? Hell yeah. Can I finance it? Sorry, not rich yet. I do however love gaming, and if I had the money, I'd drop it on you guys in a second. And if you "cranked out" a piece of crap, I'd be highly suprised.

So, here is the gauntlet being thrown. If we were to turn you guys into a team of designers dedicated to doing right what Fluid did wrong, what would each of you contribute? This is a serious line of questioning. What are you BEST at, and how would you innovate?

Lazarus

 

[Breakdaddy]

 

[CRGreathouse]

So, here is the gauntlet being thrown. If we were to turn you guys into a team of designers dedicated to doing right what Fluid did wrong, what would each of you contribute? This is a serious line of questioning. What are you BEST at, and how would you innovate?

That's a good question. I think that I would do best to swallow my pride and do a side part of it, leaving the meat to a better programmer - Jamis, perhaps. I think my component would be the custom class maker, a small but crucial (not to mention complex) part of the code. Failing that, I'd work on a race creator - making it extensible so there's no need to start over if a poor choice is made (wrong type, for example).

Contrary to a view expressed elsewhere in the thread, I don't think it's doable in 6 months, at least not to my specs.

 

[Fast Learner]

I would focus on user interface, since I have a lot of experience there, including starting and running a usability lab. I know that it can be difficult to implement a good UI when there are technical limitations and time is tight, but I believe I could do a better job than eTools. So... I offer to focus on that, along with requirements definition (which is pretty much what I do for a living now).

If this gets serious, I'll certainly elucidate on what I'd do.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I would focus on user interface[...]

Wow, that would be great! Too bad this'll never happen (assuming no one on the 'what would you do if you owned WotC' thread wins the lottery).

I have all the user-interface talent of... uh... someone with no user-interface talent?

 

[AZRAEL66]

c'mon, Fluid deserves some respect. I have a copy of e-tools,
and although i am not pleased with it, i believe it was
released for a reason. we ARE the reasons.
maybe if we send our comments, we can convince them to
make good in their next project (if there is one)
after all, everyone learns from their mistakes.


yes, yes, e-tools is definitely a mistake.
all mistakes can be corrected. i hope.

 

[CRGreathouse]

c'mon, Fluid deserves some respect. I have a copy of e-tools,
and although i am not pleased with it, i believe it was
released for a reason. we ARE the reasons.
maybe if we send our comments, we can convince them to
make good in their next project (if there is one)
after all, everyone learns from their mistakes.


yes, yes, e-tools is definitely a mistake.
all mistakes can be corrected. i hope.

I don't blame Fluid for it - it was WotC's changing demands that doomed it. Much, but not all, of that comes from their deal with InfoGrames.