Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hollywood" data-source="post: 726591" data-attributes="member: 7408">Given WotC's trackrecord, I highly doubt that they known enough or made enough effort to guarentee that the fixes could be done.  And thats just assuming that we are talking about making changes to an existing code-base.  If we are talking about starting from near scratch, then its even more important that proper software design is followed.  And bids accepted from a variety of sources.Its very easy to blame WotC because eTools went through so many different hands and therefore had many different guises.  The trail eTools took from the beginnings as MasterTools is a typical "trail of tears" that has produced numerous bad software titles throughout the years.  Fluid may indeed have been culpable, but they could only follow the directions given to them by WotC.Neither can eTools.  But no, I disagree that its relevant.  There are really only two platforms that consumers have, a) Windows or b) Mac.  The majority are still Windows machines.  Linux is no where yet ready where it has anywhere near the ability for the standard consumer to use and run it in a fashion they would a Mac or Windows machine.  Not to mention, Linux typically lacks the support for drivers and devices that are almost always updated with Windows/Mac machines.Nonetheless, Java is a bad choice for cross-platform anyways, unless you are EXTREMELY careful with it.  Ask yourself how many Java based pieces of software you can buy at BestBuy, etc.  None.  There are very good reasons for it, and one is the Swing API.  Now there are some alternatives out there that use the native window APIs that can cause an increase in performance.Yes, Luke and others like TwinRose software do.  And in neither case, free or paid-for, does it guarentee that you will have quality programmers let alone quality archtecture and design.  You poled this so-called 5,000 user base and thats the answer from everyone of them?  I doubt it.  I wouldn't be surprised to see that there are at least 1/4 of those users who are no-longer using or never really used the software at all.But bottom-line, as soon as you leave the exact SRD rules for D&D, PCGen is broken unless you wish to add code or .lst files yourself.  Not easy for the general D&Der to do so, especially considering the state that the Java code of PCGen is in and the archaic .lst files.Some other software do allow more customization to the general database of rules/templates/etc. ranging from simple manipulation of a form and its variable or up to scripting.And to me, PCGen has zero value.  It can't handle my house rules, few as they are, and can't handle a single one of my characters or the characters in that exist in the group I play with [and thats not even bringing in Forgottem Realms material since that is where we play].  Not to mention, on general principles, I wouldn't use PCGen after having looked at the code.Which way did it go?  Did CMP approach WotC or did WotC approach CMP?  Whose hand is feeding whose?  I seem to remember that one of the guys from Twin Rose said they were in negotiations to be able to use some of the non-OGL material.Nonetheless, WotC should have proceeded in a way to, as you said earlier, to allow users "Options, not restrictions.".  They failed.Who cares what WotC needs.  Its the users of eTools that WotC needed to think about, not themselves.  eTools is a mess, especially for the cost that was charged for the software, and it needs to be fixed.  No, not a few lines of code changed here and there, but a total rehaul and a new piece of software (professionals with years of software design and development under their belts) that fulfills the shipping goals for eTools and that software should be provided as a "patch", i.e. all users who bought eTools are entitled to a new free copy.Screw WotC needs.  At this point, their needs are secondary to the needs of customers who already paid good money for a piss-poor product.</blockquote>

Verification