Dungeoneer
First Post
I'm pretty sure that in your rush to defend CharOp you completely missed the point of my post.
Wizards getting character choice feedback from CB
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Yes, I've been there numerous times. I"m sorry you didn't understand that I wasn't going to break down the Char-Op version of the Pacifist Cleric to round out my description for you. The fact remains it's all numbers without context.
IoW, I find nothing wrong with playing around with numbers/concepts, but many Char-Ops take it to a level that milks the fun out of it with an attitude of "do it this way or suck".
I think Scribble has the right idea with how to use CharOp. If the CharOp's are saying that Seekers are weak compared to other controllers and that the ranger makes a better/more interesting nature-based archer, they can look to the CB data to see if this is accurate. If it is accurate, its likely that there will be relatively few seekers built. If its not accurate, then there should be a decent number of seekers built.
Personally, I think that the survey system, combined with looking at their forums (and not just the CO forums) is likely the best way to interpret the data. For Ex: "We notice that very few Seekers are being built. Is this because a) they are seen as not 'effective' enough b) they don't have enough support in the form of DDi articles/splat books c) the background flavor of the class is not interesting enough as it stands now, d) other (please explain)."
One reason for instance, that I think there are likely a ton of fighters out there is because everyone but completely newbies knows/understands what a fighter is. A battlemind on the other hand is something that isn't nearly as obvious. It doesn't necessarily mean that battleminds are inferior mechanically (though that is possible). If they keep getting answers along the lines of "Battleminds are not interesting based on their background flavor . . . " then they can work on improving the flavor of the class or race, etc.
Personally, I think that the survey system, combined with looking at their forums (and not just the CO forums) is likely the best way to interpret the data. For Ex: "We notice that very few Seekers are being built. Is this because a) they are seen as not 'effective' enough b) they don't have enough support in the form of DDi articles/splat books c) the background flavor of the class is not interesting enough as it stands now, d) other (please explain)."
One reason for instance, that I think there are likely a ton of fighters out there is because everyone but completely newbies knows/understands what a fighter is. A battlemind on the other hand is something that isn't nearly as obvious. It doesn't necessarily mean that battleminds are inferior mechanically (though that is possible). If they keep getting answers along the lines of "Battleminds are not interesting based on their background flavor . . . " then they can work on improving the flavor of the class or race, etc.
I haven't been there in a while, but the theme threads I read generally devolved in to rebuilding a character to op-standards while losing what people wanted for flavor.
Don't get me wrong, it's MUCH better than it was in 3E days, but still drives me nuts when people say they want certain things and the ops try to get them to ignore/change the flavor stuff they wanted because it was mechanically not optimum.
I think that, as was said above, you can't take the data in isolation. The sheer numbers of how of each class/build are made don't tell you anything. Neither do the optomized numbers that the char-op form pull out. However, that does not mean that you can ignore them. They are part of the whole.
hmm... to move back on topic a little bit...
I have a friend that works at a major MMORPG (not WOW). He told me that he is continually shocked at how little the developers use world data to inform world development. Most of it is anecdotal (mainly message boards) and very little of it is driven by actual data. I would be surprised if the same is true for WOW where almost every class/race/build has interesting options at most levels.*
All that said, I want the data. I would love to write a white paper entitled "What do 1 million character sheets say about 4e gaming behavior?" In it, I would develop tables and tables of statistics, particularly focusing on questions mapping popularity trends through time and leveling trends through time.
Then I would write a second paper entitled "Archetypes and archmages: How do you like your troupes?" In this paper, I would fit every build into a particular archetype and see how popular it is. Then I would look at how the popularity changes as new, perhaps more specific options become available. For example, popularity of damage fighter vs. barbarians.
The final paper would be "Choices in complex systems" where I would attempt to find out how often people play "the same" character. I think I would mainly try to characterize people into groups and see how they react to new content. There is an idea in psychology of "limited cognitive resources" for when people have too many choices. People simplify choices by applying filters. In character creation, players nominally face every possible combination--human fighter is compared to minotaur runepriest is compared to wilden avenger, etc. How do people filter the content?
*Not trying to start a conversation about 4e and WOW.
I have a friend that works at a major MMORPG (not WOW). He told me that he is continually shocked at how little the developers use world data to inform world development. Most of it is anecdotal (mainly message boards) and very little of it is driven by actual data. I would be surprised if the same is true for WOW where almost every class/race/build has interesting options at most levels.*
All that said, I want the data. I would love to write a white paper entitled "What do 1 million character sheets say about 4e gaming behavior?" In it, I would develop tables and tables of statistics, particularly focusing on questions mapping popularity trends through time and leveling trends through time.
Then I would write a second paper entitled "Archetypes and archmages: How do you like your troupes?" In this paper, I would fit every build into a particular archetype and see how popular it is. Then I would look at how the popularity changes as new, perhaps more specific options become available. For example, popularity of damage fighter vs. barbarians.
The final paper would be "Choices in complex systems" where I would attempt to find out how often people play "the same" character. I think I would mainly try to characterize people into groups and see how they react to new content. There is an idea in psychology of "limited cognitive resources" for when people have too many choices. People simplify choices by applying filters. In character creation, players nominally face every possible combination--human fighter is compared to minotaur runepriest is compared to wilden avenger, etc. How do people filter the content?
*Not trying to start a conversation about 4e and WOW.
Scribble
First Post
Another interesting thing is that they can look at this data and see if a large percentage of players are building optimized builds, or non optimized builds, or something in between.
Say for instance they find out that the char op builds choose a certain feat 10% of the time citing that in most cases it's underpowered- yet that feat is chosen roughly 70% of the time in the CB..
Does that mean that feat should be errata'd? The Char Op board might loudly proclaim YES! FIX IT!!! Yet the people choosing it 70% of the time might feel otherwise.
Say for instance they find out that the char op builds choose a certain feat 10% of the time citing that in most cases it's underpowered- yet that feat is chosen roughly 70% of the time in the CB..
Does that mean that feat should be errata'd? The Char Op board might loudly proclaim YES! FIX IT!!! Yet the people choosing it 70% of the time might feel otherwise.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I still think this kind of data is a lot more useful for improving CB than it is for improving the game.
What does it tell us if 90% of the characters built with CB pick an Expertise feat? Yeah, there's a basic curiosity factor, but it seems to me that vital context is missing. Choices get made for a variety of reasons. Even the same player is going to make different character choices depending on whom they are playing with, etc. Now, maybe there are people out there smart enough to compare this kind of data with other data and glean something from it, but you're going to mostly learn how people use CB itself. As an application designer I'd find that kind of information to be golden. As a game designer I'm really not sure it is actionable though.
What does it tell us if 90% of the characters built with CB pick an Expertise feat? Yeah, there's a basic curiosity factor, but it seems to me that vital context is missing. Choices get made for a variety of reasons. Even the same player is going to make different character choices depending on whom they are playing with, etc. Now, maybe there are people out there smart enough to compare this kind of data with other data and glean something from it, but you're going to mostly learn how people use CB itself. As an application designer I'd find that kind of information to be golden. As a game designer I'm really not sure it is actionable though.
