Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9179181" data-attributes="member: 6790260">&quot;If you don't have a solution, don't argue&quot; isn't giving a solution either though. The argument defeats itself.The solution to the problem is for WotC to actually goddamn analyze their own game. A bit of statistical analysis, avoiding some really boneheaded math simplification choices (like treating all AoE spells as though they only ever hit 2 targets), and letting a computer run some simulations. Just a bit of computer simulation to perform bulk data tests over time can make a huge difference. (Heck, now that BG3 exists, just crack it open, program in the stuff you want to try, and let the AI go to town. It does a lot of stupid things, to be fair, but you'll get some idea of how things play out.) Then you can focus the live, human playtesting, the part that is expensive and time-consuming, on the things that actually need human brains to think through.Hence, I will continue to call for such things. I will continue to criticize WotC's piss-poor survey design, lackluster to nonexistent mathematical testing, and frankly bizarre logic on when to abandon something as unworkable (tons of stuff in the original playtest died after only ONE attempt!) vs when to keep something long past its pull date (e.g. &quot;proficiency dice,&quot; Specialties, several attempts at Fighter mechanics).So...yeah. I do have a solution. The solution is to actually bloody test the rules--and when rules are found to be busted, FIX THEM, don't just let them sit there broken for a bloody decade. But WotC is allergic to the very concept of serious errata. That's (another reason) why we're getting 5.5e; they can't not fix things, but they can't print errata because they're afraid of the backlash from admitting that anything could be wrong and in need of fixes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9179181, member: 6790260"] "If you don't have a solution, don't argue" isn't giving a solution either though. The argument defeats itself. The solution to the problem is for WotC to actually goddamn analyze their own game. A bit of statistical analysis, avoiding some really boneheaded math simplification choices (like treating all AoE spells as though they only ever hit 2 targets), and letting a computer run some simulations. Just a bit of computer simulation to perform bulk data tests over time can make a huge difference. (Heck, now that BG3 exists, just crack it open, program in the stuff you want to try, and let the AI go to town. It does a lot of stupid things, to be fair, but you'll get [I]some[/I] idea of how things play out.) Then you can focus the live, human playtesting, the part that is expensive and time-consuming, on the things that actually need human brains to think through. Hence, I will continue to call for such things. I will continue to criticize WotC's piss-poor survey design, lackluster to nonexistent mathematical testing, and frankly [I]bizarre[/I] logic on when to abandon something as unworkable (tons of stuff in the original playtest died after only ONE attempt!) vs when to keep something long past its pull date (e.g. "proficiency dice," Specialties, [I]several[/I] attempts at Fighter mechanics). So...yeah. I do have a solution. The solution is to actually bloody test the rules--and when rules are found to be busted, FIX THEM, don't just let them sit there broken for a bloody decade. But WotC is allergic to the very concept of serious errata. That's (another reason) why we're getting 5.5e; they can't [I]not[/I] fix things, but they can't print errata because they're afraid of the backlash from admitting that anything could be wrong and in need of fixes. [/QUOTE]

Verification