Rule of Three 4/25/11

[Echohawk]

I am starting to feel hopeful about DDI again; once they get the damn Monster Builder to use the right math and actually build monsters again, I will probably try a one-month resub to see how it looks.

The fact that you said "once they get the... Monster Builder... right" rather than "if they get the Monster Builder right" already says a lot about WotC's efforts to rebuild confidence in DDI

 

[Lindeloef]

Hmm, will the epic adventure arc be in dungeon or a buy-able thing(book, box set, whatever)?

 

[TerraDave]

Clearly what people hoped to read. Now lets see if they do it.

An actual epic adventure arc that works, epicly, thats a pretty big promise right there.

 

[Mirtek]

Yeah, I was very happy with this answer. Because you are right. They were dodging around and leaving alot of room for speculation. Today's answers made that go away.

Really? Because the only straight anser that is not dodging around and leaving a lot of for speculation is that there will be an epic tier adventure arc.

Everything else is the same old vague nothing.

Yes. A clear answer with no legalistic bullpucky padded around it is SO MUCH BETTER than the crappy, no-real-answer stuff we've been getting.

Maybe I am just reading a different Rule of Three than everyone else here.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'd really like to see some more support in terms of the gaps left by HotF* series; Expertise for Flails, Picks and maybe Polearms, Expertise and Focus for Weapliments, more thematic build choices / class features for classes (like the Eladrin Knight), and so on.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is the first answer:

Yes. We are in the process of finalizing DDI content plans for the coming year. Based on community feedback, we are going to make sure that we roll out support for existing classes and find ways to shore up classes that are seen as under-supported.

Bolded the relevant parts... of course, you can still call that vague... but i am not sure if that is fair...

 

[WalterKovacs]

This is the first answer:

Yes. We are in the process of finalizing DDI content plans for the coming year. Based on community feedback, we are going to make sure that we roll out support for existing classes and find ways to shore up classes that are seen as under-supported.

Bolded the relevant parts... of course, you can still call that vague... but i am not sure if that is fair...

It's simultaneously firm and vague. Yes, it does confirm there will be support for pre-Essential classes coming soon. It leaves out any specifics, which makes sense ... they haven't finalized the plans so they can't say for sure when or what will be getting support (and, they probably don't know exactly what articles they will be putting out in say 4 months time, so any commitment like that would be silly and bound to come back and bite them).

Still, the commitment that at some point in the future there will be some kind of specific pre-Essential support, while promising, is still covering their butts by not getting too specific. Still, it's probably as clear as they can be ... more specific and they are making promises they may not be able to keep, and lying (or failing to keep a promise) would be worse in the long run than dodging the question, and this answer at least hewed the line to be direct without overpromising.

 

[the Jester]

The fact that you said "once they get the... Monster Builder... right" rather than "if they get the Monster Builder right" already says a lot about WotC's efforts to rebuild confidence in DDI

You know, you're absolutely right.

 

[Riastlin]

It's simultaneously firm and vague. Yes, it does confirm there will be support for pre-Essential classes coming soon. It leaves out any specifics, which makes sense ... they haven't finalized the plans so they can't say for sure when or what will be getting support (and, they probably don't know exactly what articles they will be putting out in say 4 months time, so any commitment like that would be silly and bound to come back and bite them).

Still, the commitment that at some point in the future there will be some kind of specific pre-Essential support, while promising, is still covering their butts by not getting too specific. Still, it's probably as clear as they can be ... more specific and they are making promises they may not be able to keep, and lying (or failing to keep a promise) would be worse in the long run than dodging the question, and this answer at least hewed the line to be direct without overpromising.

Yeah this was my thought as well. They can't give specifics at this time because they simply do not know what they are. Heck, they may not even have specific submissions in mind. It could be that they plan on contacting some of the more regular contributors (hi Mr. Schwalb!) and saying "Hey, you know what would be great is if you could do an article on X." More to the point, even if they have a particular submission in mind, the editing process might change the nature of it substantially.

Even the comment about the under-supported classes, while seemingly a reference to classes like the runepriest, seeker and artificer can't be made definitive until they know for sure its on the release schedule. Sure, it would be nice if they were to say "We're releasing a new build for the Seeker in August" but they can't really do that unless a) that particular article is already finished and through the approval process and b) their release schedule is already set for then. Otherwise as stated, its just another "broken promise". I guess they could say "We hope to release a new Seeker build by . . . " but even that could be giving out false hope. What if the proposed build gets reviewed/tested/etc. and its deemed not worthy of publication? Now they're back to the drawing board.

 

[Mirtek]

This is the first answer:

Yes. We are in the process of finalizing DDI content plans for the coming year. Based on community feedback, we are going to make sure that we roll out support for existing classes and find ways to shore up classes that are seen as under-supported.

Bolded the relevant parts... of course, you can still call that vague... but i am not sure if that is fair...

Which is in no way different from the very same thing they kept repeating since after the first negative threads upon the announcement of Essentials started. Given their track record this could easily result in even more fighter articles.

Yes, it does confirm there will be support for pre-Essential classes coming soon.

Which is what they didn't tire to confirm since the first complaints after the mere announcement of essentials.

They can't give specifics at this time because they simply do not know what they are.

Which is a weakness they need to improve at. Much more complicated business are doing plans for the next 5-year with bonuses in 2016 depending on reaching goals set 2011. And they can even pin a 20 pages article with 10 new powers and 5 new feats for, lets say, August?

Even the comment about the under-supported classes, while seemingly a reference to classes like the runepriest, seeker and artificer can't be made definitive until they know for sure its on the release schedule.

Not even simply announce an article for such a class in 2011. This would at least show that they have identified the right classes as in need of support and their continued support for under-supported pre-essential classes won't be yet annother fighter article.

Sure, it would be nice if they were to say "We're releasing a new build for the Seeker in August" but they can't really do that unless a) that particular article is already finished and through the approval process and b) their release schedule is already set for then. Otherwise as stated, its just another "broken promise". I guess they could say "We hope to release a new Seeker build by . . . " but even that could be giving out false hope.

Or they could get a grip on their business and become able to deliver on such promises.

Other businesses are now tasked to budget how much of their specific product they will sell in Africa or Eastern Europe in 2012 (and have their personal bonus depending on that) and WotC can't even tell which articles they will have in August?

E.g. they could have said:

"Based on community feedback, we are going to make sure that we adress some of the most frequently named issues like feat taxes or melee basic attacks and we roll out support for existing classes and find ways to shore up classes that are seen as under-supported like the runepriests."

No fixed time commitment, but at least a hint that they understood what the community gave as feedback and that we'll not see the hundredth fighter article instead