Wizards getting character choice feedback from CB

[renau1g]

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.

Please no. I really don't want stupid pop-ups or request for surveys encroaching on me making a PC. Mine the data all you want in the background, but stay the hells away from me. Making a PC already takes more time in the new CB, last thing I want is to waste more time closing pop-ups...

 

[Dausuul]

"I read the editorial today on the DDI site, and wanted to express my opinion in favor of WOTC providing support to all the classes and roles evenly, and NOT focusing support on the more popular choices."

Can't say I agree with this. There should certainly be some support for oddball elements that don't see much play, but to provide an equal amount of support for the fighter and the battlemind is just silly. The odds are much greater that a given group will contain two fighters than two battleminds, and the diversity of options available to fighters should be correspondingly larger.

 

[Aegeri]

Can't say I agree with this. There should certainly be some support for oddball elements that don't see much play, but to provide an equal amount of support for the fighter and the battlemind is just silly. The odds are much greater that a given group will contain two fighters than two battleminds, and the diversity of options available to fighters should be correspondingly larger.

The thing is there is already so much available for the fighter I have no pity if the next year gives them absolutely nothing specifically. The fighter has BILLIONS of options, it has BILLIONS of paragon paths, it has BILLIONS of epic destinies, it has BILLIONS of feats (actually maybe infinity feats) and I am just sick of seeing fighter articles. There are some classes that have zero behind them just about. Part of the reason I never see anyone play say, a Runepriest or Seeker is because there is just no support for them in the game.

I mean do you want to play the class/race that gets delicious cake constantly, or do you want to play the class/race that gets a crappy article with one horrific feat (cough changeling cough).

 

[Scribble]

I mean do you want to play the class/race that gets delicious cake constantly, or do you want to play the class/race that gets a crappy article with one horrific feat (cough changeling cough).

Ostensibly this type of question is exactly why having this type of data available is great.

The designers, instead of guessing, can actually look at the raw data and say, hey- this class only has one article, and no book support, yet a ton of people are playing it.

they can then get to work on figuring out WHY that is happening, and use it to improve their design work overall.

The main point not being that there is only one way to read the data, but that there actually IS solid data, as opposed to hunches, from which to start.


What I also find interesting is that it won't just be class level data... I'm sure they'll be able to look at just about EVERYTHING involved in character building.

How many times did people actually choose a certain feat or power?

Do people tend to go with the "optimal" build, or do people go with something else?

What percentage of people play female characters?

What percentage of people choose rituals? How about when they're not an arcane or divine class to begin with?

Do people multiclass?

They can even combine that info- do people who not like to play optimal builds tend to play certain classes? OR Certain races? What powers do they select? Etc...

Databases are AWESOME when it comes to looking at trends and raw data.

Once they actually get the Adventure tools in place, and if they can manage to build something that also lets DMs build encounters?

They will know a TON of info about our games. They might not read it right, or understand it completely, but it will be real data!


They'll even be able to look at this data compared to say- internet noise... Does all that debate about CAGI actually pan out to people not choosing CAGI? Or do a majority of people still select that power despite all the internet anger?


This thing has also just become a LOT more valuable to Wizards then it once was- which means they also now have a solid VALUE to show the people who control the purse strings.


Were I another game company... I;d being paying close attention to how this thing pans out.

 

[Aegeri]

If Wizards could see half the encounters I make I feel they would be deeply disturbed. Like the devil with his dance troupe that mentally controls his victims within an interdimensional space, forcing his enemies to literally dance themselves to death. Or the Chuuls with top hats (dapper blokes really). Or the "impossible" encounters where I want to see how many endless daemons that my party might face before dying (as an academic exercise, not actual play). Incidentally, that was an EL+8 of level 27-30 demons before they were overrun entirely and killed.

 

[Scribble]

If Wizards could see half the encounters I make I feel they would be deeply disturbed. Like the devil with his dance troupe that mentally controls his victims within an interdimensional space, forcing his enemies to literally dance themselves to death. Or the Chuuls with top hats (dapper blokes really). Or the "impossible" encounters where I want to see how many endless daemons that my party might face before dying (as an academic exercise, not actual play). Incidentally, that was an EL+8 of level 27-30 demons before they were overrun entirely and killed.

I did something similar with minions one night on an off night. I had minions keep "spawning" and after so many where killed they got a little stronger.

It was pretty fun.




But even this stuff- If they see people doing crazy things just for fun, you can bet there will be some articles about weird things you can do for fun.

 

[tuxgeo]

Please no. I really don't want stupid pop-ups or request for surveys encroaching on me making a PC. Mine the data all you want in the background, but stay the hells away from me. Making a PC already takes more time in the new CB, last thing I want is to waste more time closing pop-ups...

Hm. A survey option wouldn't have to be a popup. The user wouldn't have to close anything, if the programmers set it up as an opt-in: on the last Manage screen before saving, they could add a checkbox for "check here if you would be willing to tell us why. . . ."
That way, the ones who don't want to bother with it would not have even one additional keystroke to make, nor even one additional mouse click to make, in order to avoid the survey.

Would that bother you any less? (Or is the entire concept of surveys offensive?)

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

I actually like the idea of WotC getting feedback on character choices except for:

1. The Character Builder and other electronic tools currently suck. I hate the idea that programming time is used for anything other than fixing the current electronic products.

2. What's the point of having access to data for the creation of DDi articles when both Dragon and Dungeon produce so little content anyway (and are shortly to be combined into a single magazine called Ampersand due to that lack of content)?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I don't think we even could have more fighter articles. I mean, what's left?

Also I'd love to see the data they collect if just to count how many pure-class Seekers are done. I wouldn't even need a calculator or auto-counting program; I have two hands. Even that's probably overkill.

 

[Aegeri]

We still lack a fighter that is a naked wrestler archetype. Clearly this would be an essential and absolutely necessary addition to the Fighter class.