D&D (2024) What is your oppinion of 5.24 so far?

[UngeheuerLich]

Pretty sure this thread is all about opinions and speculation.

Ok. But that opinion was stated as fact. When it was (my nicest words for it) conspiracy theory. If you want my honest opinion, I guess that is against forum rules.

 

[FrogReaver]

Or, most people really didn't want warlocks to be a half caster.

I certainly down voted it, writing in the desire for more variations of classes. (I also wanted sorcerers to cast directly with Sorcery Points).

I think most people just wanted a well implemented warlock. The half caster implementation they gave felt off.

 

[FrogReaver]

A

Standard procedure it to count 4/5 as positive, and 1/2 as negative.
And ignore 3.

Alternatively just average the results.

But it depends on what you’re looking for.

Another very common approach is to only take the really bad and really good responses.

 

[mellored]

Another very common approach is to only take the really bad and really good responses.

Not if your doing 1-5 with optional free form input. And they have said multiple times someone (probably an intern that was later laid off) was reading each comment.

If you just want the extremes, a simple up, down, skip would be better.

So I am pretty sure that their benchmark was 70% of the people said 4 or 5.

Then the interns did a keyword bucket. Sorting out how many time people said 'old pact magic' or similar.

No survey is going to be perfect, but this one was done professionally. (And I have a masters in data analysis, so I'm not just bullshitting).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A

Another very common approach is to only take the really bad and really good responses.

Source please.

I don't think this is a good idea if you consider voluntary response bias. I would rather drop the responses that only use exreme ratings.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Crawford didn't talk about averages or 5s, he talked about percentage who rated it positively. I'm guessing that positive meant 4 or 5 and they didn't much care which. This is all reading tealeaves.

If (general) you were a person who loved the idea of a half-caster warlock (or templated wildshapes as another example) but still gave them 1s and 2s because what WotC offered up wasn't 100% the way you'd prefer them to be... (general) you pretty much shot off your own foot.

Or you took the position that a bad plan executed well is better than a good plan executed incompetently. What we saw was a pre-alpha version (that seemed like the results of 20 minutes of brainstorming), and I don't trust Crawford's rules writing. I'd rather have a good statblock wildshape than a bad template one. And the one we saw didn't even reach the level of bad.

 

[mamba]

So you have access to their analysis method details? Please share! If not, seems to me you're just assuming incompetence or some weird nefarious attitude.

that argument is so weak, not everything you do not have access to the details of is flawless. How about you show me where the flaws in the logic are, and if you cannot, then maybe there aren't any, access to their model or not. Access just means we would have a much better idea how to quantify the impact of the flaws.

In any case, we had a long thread about this already, I am not interested in rehashing all of this here again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok. But that opinion was stated as fact. When it was (my nicest words for it) conspiracy theory. If you want my honest opinion, I guess that is against forum rules.

Fair enough. I assumed the folks I was referencing were using facts. My bad.

 

[Oofta]

that argument is so weak, how about you show me where the flaws in the logic are, and if you cannot, then maybe there aren't any, access to their model or not. Access just means we would have a much better idea how to quantify the impact of the flaws.

In any case, we had a long thread about this already, I am not interested in rehashing all of this here again.

We don't know what analysis methods they used. Full stop. Making any assumptions or drawing any conclusions on their analysis, good or bad, therefore has no foundation. I have never seen a single large scale company backed survey that shared details of how the responses were analyzed, so it's not like the UA feedback surveys were at all an outlier.

Since we don't know what methodology they used, there cannot be a misunderstanding unless you assume the hypothesis that has no justification or proof as fact that only 1s and 5s mattered while 2-4 responses were ignored.

If the hypothesis that 2-4s were all ignored and they purposely were trying to mislead us for some reason the only reasons that I can think of are nefarious or incompetence.

If I misunderstood what you were attempting to say, please explain.

 

[mamba]

We don't know what analysis methods they used. Full stop.

we do not know how our votes of 1 to 5 translate into percentages, agreed, but there is more to it than just that.

Making any assumptions or drawing any conclusions on their analysis, good or bad, therefore has no foundation.

only as far as how they arrive at their percentages is concerned

I have never seen a single large scale company backed survey that shared details of how the responses were analyzed, so it's not like the UA feedback surveys were at all an outlier.

no, but that is irrelevant

Since we don't know what methodology they used, there cannot be a misunderstanding unless you assume the hypothesis that has no justification or proof as fact that only 1s and 5s mattered while 2-4 responses were ignored.

that is not what I said, the misunderstanding is about what a vote of 3 or 4 means. The voter has an idea of what it represents, but since they do not know what WotC will do based on the number (iterate or abandon), there is no good way to communicate liking the new proposal over the existing one but to vote 5. Any other vote in hindsight is much more likely to lead to WotC to abandon it than improving it, so anyone voting 3 or 4 because they liked the direction but thought it needed some improvement screwed themselves over (I assume anyone voting 1 or 2 does not want the new direction).

So the only way to clearly communicate intent to WotC in a way they understand is by using 1 or 5.

If I misunderstood what you were attempting to say, please explain.

see above