|
1 year ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 7:51AM
#21
|
|
|
Quite true, but you made another common mistake there: one needs to be specific and to the point in a playtest, saying "the fighter is flawed on its face, a chid can see it" is barely constructive, and at face value is just a rant, it just shows your displeasure with the current global build, without specifics gives no value to the devs.
My problems with the fighter have already been mod-deleted, and I don't want to go off-topic here. There fighter is extremely flawed in a lot of ways. There are topics full of that specific discussion if you're genuinely interested, but still people insist on insisting that it's completely fine as-is.
My point is that there are problems. Flavor, tone, and rules ones. But calling attention to them makes you the squeaky wheel, and squeaky wheel gets the boot. A playtest group of smiling Polyannas isn't helping anything, and it doesn't take much to see that's the direction the wind's blowing. Driving away dissenting opinion doesn't make ideas better.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 7:53AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Quite true, but you made another common mistake there: one needs to be specific and to the point in a playtest, saying "the fighter is flawed on its face, a chid can see it" is barely constructive, and at face value is just a rant, it just shows your displeasure with the current global build, without specifics gives no value to the devs.
My problems with the fighter have already been mod-deleted, and I don't want to go off-topic here. There fighter is extremely flawed in a lot of ways. There are topics full of that specific discussion if you're genuinely interested, but still people insist on insisting that it's completely fine as-is.
My point is that there are problems. Flavor, tone, and rules ones. But calling attention to them makes you the squeaky wheel, and squeaky wheel gets the boot. A playtest group of smiling Polyannas isn't helping anything, and it doesn't take much to see that's the direction the wind's blowing. Driving away dissenting opinion doesn't make ideas better.
There's nothing wrong with negative feedback, as long as it's constructive and not just whining.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 8:05AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jun 13, 2008
|
I'm a software developer... when the testers test the software, they have access to all of core functionality. If the tester want to create a new user giving him strange permission, they can make it and only then they will see that something is broken.
Not to derail the thread, but this approach to software development is falling into disuse. In modern shops, software is first submitted to the stakeholders / testers with the bare minimum amount of features nessisary, and then more functionality is added iteratively. In this case, the ability to create a charicter is not nessissary to play D&D, so it was not included with the initial playtest.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 8:22AM
#24
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with negative feedback, as long as it's constructive and not just whining.
That's what I thought, too.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 12:04PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I'm hearing that they may release more material over the next few weeks. Would be good to see more.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 29, 2012 - 3:49AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2009
|
My problems with the fighter have already been mod-deleted, and I don't want to go off-topic here.
To be perfectly frank, if it was deleted by a mod, either your post or someone's reply to your post was out of line in some way. WotC is clearly open ears to criticism, that's kind of the point of playtesting. But if something in that thread was destructive as opposed to constructive, it would have been sniped.
Let's face it, edition warring isn't just still alive and kicking, I think it's some people's hobby now. If there was even a spark in that thread, I'd have closed it if I were WotC.
But you're right, best not to dwell on a closed thread, I just wanted to offer up some perspective.
|
|
|
