Wizards getting character choice feedback from CB

[Dungeoneer]

My guess is that this kind of data is going to be most useful at the margins. In other words, they should look for character options that EVERYbody picks and those that virtually NEVER get taken.

If every Barbarian is a Rageblood Barbarian then that says that Rageblood is too good and that other barb builds need beefing up. If nobody ever plays a Runepriest then that class isn't working and needs a major update. But the numbers they base these on should be pretty extreme. We're talking 90/10 splits here, not 60/40. A 60/40 split might indicate people gravitate towards a certain archetype. But if 95% of players make a dual-wield Ranger, you know there's factors other than Drizzt at play here.

They should also be able to screen out the 'new and shiny' effect. Obviously, most character options will see a spike in popularity just after release. They should be able to get a handle on what this spike looks like and filter it out once they start to get some good historical data.

 

[Zaran]

I'm sure Wizards can tell the difference between 50 epic level characters from 1 person and 1 epic level character each from 50 people.

You can't really complain about Wizards getting customer feedback. It would be cool if they did what Google did and let us vote for new features.

Except that one person can't have 50 characters saved. They would need to data mine which characters are accessed most and which ones are made once and left untouched.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Data could be crossed with messageboards. Then you could see why something is less played (less popula, because does not work, and so on).

Sort of qualitative + quantitative data to think about..

Alternatively, they could actually publish their findings and ask for comment, as in: (wording is obviously just handwaving)

Swarm Druids don't seem to be very popular. What should we do?

a. Stop publishing content for them
b. Publish more fluff / support for reflavoring
c. Improve the mechanics, e.g. better armor proficiencies, longer ranged attacks, higher damage attacks
d. Add more feats
e. Add more powers
f. Add more paragon paths

 

[tuxgeo]

If WotC wants to know how to put the data into action, another feature they might want to consider for the new Character Builder is an optional survey to be filled out only one time per new character built; something along the lines of, "If you are willing to share, please tell us why you chose to build this character this way (Check all options that apply)":

• I wanted to make a character similar to one I had encountered or seen in other media (games, movies, books, popular songs, Frazetta posters, other art, etc.).
• I wanted a chance to implement some roleplaying feature in this particular way (features such as backgrounds, jokes, personalities, mannerisms, destinies, relationships, plotlines, etc.).
• I needed a character to fill a certain gaming role (controller, defender, leader, striker, other).
• I wanted to see how powerful and effective I could make a character of this sort.
• I wanted to make a character that would synergize better with the other characters in an existing party.
• I wanted to try out one or more of the options that I had not tried before from a certain source book or boxed set (for example, each build from "Heroes of the Fallen Lands").
• Other (specify):

However, that would merely give them information, not Intelligence: they would still have to interpret the results in order to get actionable analysis.
​

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Except that one person can't have 50 characters saved. They would need to data mine which characters are accessed most and which ones are made once and left untouched.

Really? Can you point to a description of the limitations?

 

[Scribble]

Whatever the case, and however they choose to interpret the data, it's at least actual data that they're choosing to interpret, instead of hunches and guesswork.

 

[Aegeri]

I'm going to make three epic tier characters that are:

Gnome Artificer
Gnome Seeker
Gnome Runepriest

Actually I might just occupy my 20 slots with variations on Artificer/Seeker/Runepriest and see what that might get out in the end. All of whom are epic tier too.

 

[Herschel]

I'll be making More Genasi Swordmages, Genasi Seeker, Genasi Chaos Sorcerer and Wilden something or other.

 

[Riastlin]

I can't access the editorial from work, but I seem to recall reading last night (when I was reading the editorial) that he stated they were going to look at how often a character was updated, etc. in addition to just pure numbers. In other words, if I create an Epic tier Runepriest and update it every week, adding a little bit of XP each week and an item here and there, then levelling up as the XP goes up, etc. it would be a lot more indicative of me actually playing an Epic Tier Runepriest than merely creating one and never updating it would. Obviously, I could be trying to game the system, but at least I'm being really dedicated about it in this instance.

As an aside, I did e-mail them my thoughts on the subject (i.e. what does it mean when I don't play a shardmind). Personally, I would encourage others to do so. I've had good results in the past with getting responses from some of their peeps like Chris Perkins and Steve Winter. Obviously, they won't respond to everyone, but my guess is that they will read the submissions. If you're polite, odds are that you'll even help them interpret the data. I think they realize that they are opening a new window here (hence the comment "It's interesting but not yet useful"). I do believe that they want to address the public's concerns but its difficult to do without actual constructive feedback. I still think that the sheer number of classes and races will make it difficult for them to keep everyone happy as there will inevitably be a number of months in which the content misses the mark for the average person, but at least they seem to be trying.

BTW, I love the idea of the feedback option for why you built the character you did. This could even trigger with each level up. "Why did you choose this power, or this feat?" That will give them an idea as to what makes certain choices so common. If they see a lot of people taking racial feats because they synergize with the character concept that they are building, then you'll see more of those. If; however they see that nobody wants a situational +1 feat bonus to hit, then we'll likely see less of those, etc.

 

[Mirtek]

I am still waiting for this