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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6067197" data-attributes="member: 95493">I think the problem here for you then is you assume the foundation, the frame, the plumbing, electrics, the walls and the insulation aren't already there. They are. If they weren't then there would be nothing to test. The house isn't decorated yet and there are some holes in the walls, leaky pipes, abysmal heating (you forgot heating), or inadequate soundproofing/insulation but there is SOME level already there. You seem to imply there isn't.Again, WotC is not paizo so they don't have a frame... that doesn't really work as an argument to me. But it is possible I'm vastly missing your point here.What I was also saying is it seems like you are saying WotC needs to be less WotC (as they are now - part of hasbro) and more paizo in order to do 5e well. I disagree. I don't see how those things really relate as far as the 2 year process of development and playtesting goes. If anything paizo wouldn't have the resources WotC does to do this kind of job. They would fail in a 5e type idea because 80% of the work wasn't already done for them. Or they wouldn't be able to spend 2+ years without actually making money on that product - not to mention killing their current PF (or relating it back to WotC - 4e) brand in the mean time.Like it or not small companies don't reboot and release 52 new comics all at once. You can question how good those 52 new comics are, but the fact that there are 52 of them means there is a higher chance of liking at least one and for the company to make money, as opposed to the smaller company that releases 1-5 and having a higher chance of NOT liking any.Now is that to say smaller companies don't have their merits? Absolutely not, but I don't see the argument that WotC is too WotC to do this job. Again, if I missed something here let me know, your current view (as I understand it) baffles me.First question, have you been the DEV too?Second question, what does "their first Alpha' mean exactly?Alpha tests don't need to be singular, they just have to be first. I agree wholeheartedly at posts made after you but before this one about how this is more of a Alpha and how WotC needs to communicate that better.That is basically what I said. But that doesn't mean you should NOT introduce those higher levels as soon as possible. As someone else said, if you have to redesign things later then you have to redesign them later. It beats the following 2 things that happen when you don't have higher levels -1: People demand higher levels, get annoyed that you aren't giving them and moves on (the last part of this didn't happen but the first did)2: You have no effin idea what happens at higher levels, so when you DO release that material then it doesn't match is disjoined from lower levels - I'd argue this is more than a little true of the pumps that happen in 4e (between paragon and epic) or between regular and epic in 3e. You need to test everything to do them all well.I agree that they need to work on monsters sooner rather than later. I also think that as it is NOW that monsters remaining fairly static allow you to test how things work for other classes. I recall someone saying that you can't test things in a vacuum. You need to have an ogre that remains fairly consistent (along with some goblins or a dragon or whatever) to see what happens when a full party encounters it, what happens when a fighter goes in solo, how much stronger/weaker the wizard is when fighting alone, and so on.Actually, it isn't really like that. There is no blueprint on creativity on this scale. It is like having two dozen people make an abstract painting without having a target. Eventually they'll get there but they almost certainly have no idea what it will look like when they start. And even if they did the final product would almost certainly not resemble the original intent.Actually, its even closer to giving a dozen kids a room full of legos. Then telling them to build ANYTHING they want, but it has to have certain criterias. If you give them a blueprint they can probably follow it and give you exactly as you envisioned in the blueprint. That doesn't allow for any creativity, but it will be followed out.OR you could let them go hog-wild. Some kids will value the structure, the walls and doors and floor. The simple things, and build that. Others will want to work on the little people that live inside, giving them cool facial expressions - reasoning why that one lego person has a blue hand and why another carries around a katana. Another kid might work on laser turrets that sit on top of the walls. Another kid may be able to make a beautiful sculpture. That is the essence of creativity. They absolutely NEED that kind of creativity (maybe not on that scale or quite so free form - they need some rules or "feedback" if you will) but if they set out blueprints and just follow those until something is made then they absolutely will miss out on the minor details that creativity could have gave them. They may still make 300 little lego people to live in the building but there won't be that one with the blue hand anymore. They may still have a guy who thought to put laser turrets on but there wasn't room anymore. If they want to put in cool secret passages AFTER they have followed the blueprints it is much harder.Almost no one works truly creatively if they are forced to follow a blueprint or go step by step. Especially when the outcome isn't known, it is something that has to be developed - molded and shaped into the right form.Agreed, on both points.</blockquote>

Verification