|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 6:40PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2012
|
Tunnel-Vision
You have fixed assumptions about what needs to be changed. People do not agree with you. You have great trouble understanding why they do not agree with your assumptions.
You try incoporate their thoughts but you have already developed the project according to your assumptions. Changing the core mechanics is not useful for optimization. Rewriting 4E without permission is not helpful.
Well, it's not that I'm rejecting anything out of hand, but neither do I want to simply take everything said as gospel truth, either. I'm quite used to people rejecting ideas they don't fully understand, and I want to make sure both sides understand the other before any action is taken.
But point taken.
I suspect what drew people in was the idea of discussing tweaks to powers that optimizers think are weak to promote the idea of having more choices.
Well, that's really why I'm here as well, but since no one wants to actually look at the powers, my options are somewhat limited.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 6:54PM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2004
|
We do want to look at the powers. We just want to look at them here instead of in another program we have to go find, download and process. Also, the changes are what is important to us, not as much the final product. The final product is what players want to see, you are basically asking us to act like developers and not players for this project. So treat us like developers.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out hereSpoiler:
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 7:00PM
#93
|
|
|
We do want to look at the powers. We just want to look at them here instead of in another program we have to go find, download and process. Also, the changes are what is important to us, not as much the final product. The final product is what players want to see, you are basically asking us to act like developers and not players for this project. So treat us like developers.
Well said.
Honestly I'll repeat what others have said. Make a Wiki. It is actually really unfortunate you put so much time and effort into this before asking for help from people with a better understanding of 4e, because so far all your proposed systemtic changes create more problems than they solve or don't really solve any actual problems while increasing system complexity (which is a net loss). Given that is the case it is a fair bet that your changes to powers will have similar issues.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 7:25PM
#94
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2012
|
We do want to look at the powers. We just want to look at them here instead of in another program we have to go find, download and process.
You don't have to find anything. I gave you everything you needed on a silver platter. Download and process, yes, but that's very simple.
Also, the changes are what is important to us, not as much the final product. The final product is what players want to see, you are basically asking us to act like developers and not players for this project. So treat us like developers.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. Developers would actually have to do some of the work themselves, and would have to take the data in whatever format they were given.
Honestly I'll repeat what others have said. Make a Wiki.
We'll see, but I'm still not really not sure what that's going to accomplish. If you're not going to load up a program, I doubt you're going to edit a wiki.
It is actually really unfortunate you put so much time and effort into this before asking for help from people with a better understanding of 4e, because so far all your proposed systemtic changes create more problems than they solve or don't really solve any actual problems while increasing system complexity (which is a net loss). Given that is the case it is a fair bet that your changes to powers will have similar issues.
That doesn't necessarily follow. Sweeping changes are of course going to have the most unforeseen consequences. Changes to individual elements are more limited in their impact, and reworking systems and iterating on game elements are very different disciplines.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 7:47PM
#95
|
|
|
You left out "find and install the old CB and oh yeah, according to WotC doing that violates their ToS and they have a C&D out against using CBLoader." Also "Download untrusted files from a complete stranger on the internet." It is not "simple." And, indeed, even if we were to do, we'd be reduced to manually going through everything in the CB and trying to find the changes you made compared to the originals. That is not "simple."
Developers work in group documents, like wikis. They use formats that are actually useful and helpful.
Being able to access a wiki from anywhere without installing anything new gives it two advantages over a program, right there.
A lack of system mastery is a lack of system mastery, be it in general or in specifics. If you don't understand the game than changes you make are going to be haphazard in their effectiveness. That is just a gimme.
Cross-post: from the other thread
I think you're going about this backwards. Problems ought to be outlined before fixes are outlined. If you're going to ask CharOp for advice, and it is a good idea to do so if you are careful to listen to their advice, that would probably be the best way of doing so. Suggestions for fixes can be made note of, but first collect the problems, then ask for solutions. And work your way down from systemtic to indivudal because it is quite possible that an individual change to a class/power/whatever will be rendered moot or invalidated outright by a systemtic change (the actual errata team does this all the time).
Also anything said by one person should be taken with a grain of salt. If only one person says something is a problem, ignore it. Which is also why you should separate people talking about problems from talking about solutions. People will argue about solutions to something they both agree is a problem and that'll bog down the focus of the discussion.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 8:02PM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2004
|
Also, the changes are what is important to us, not as much the final product. The final product is what players want to see, you are basically asking us to act like developers and not players for this project. So treat us like developers.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. Developers would actually have to do some of the work themselves, and would have to take the data in whatever format they were given.
And here we have the route of the problem. You are asking us to think like developers (give feedback on the changes in a fashion you can actually work with to improve or change them) but are giving us the material as if we were players. They are definately different entities. I am going to go out on a limb here, and I mean no offense by saying this, and say you haven't done a lot of formal game designing. Game designers, Game Playtesters and Gamers give completely different feedback. I think the feedback you want is from the Game designer point of view. When you make strong changes to things, or lots of small changes and tweaks, it is hard for them to be processed the different types of people if you don't give it to us in the right format.
Let me take a sec and explain what I mean.
Designers
If you want design-oriented feedback, you structure it in a similar method and in similar context to how that material was designed. If you ever get to see what a game looks like in the design stage you will see it is a completely different animal from what the Gamers (or even the Playtesters) see. Its ugly, it mechanical, its barebones. That is what it needs to be. Only the highlights are plucked out and lifted out to be put under a microscope. When you give designers feedback like this they can take it and directly link it to other things and give options for what is going on between the lines. Lets take an example from your other thread (This is example is me making a formatting point, not really for content. I said on the other thread I don't know enough about Seeker to properly give good input):
Spoiler:
Show
Storm of Spirits:
Original Weakness: When compared to other D1 it does less damage and has less control.
Changes
Area Burst 1 -> Area Burst 2
1[W] -> 2[W]
Reasoning: These changes will make the power do enough damage to compete with the other powers.
When you frame it like this we can, with our designers, give good feedback on the different issues. Personally I would give the following Feedback: The changes may or may not follow with the original weakness. I think this needs some harder control element to play with.Proposed change: Area Burst 2 change remains, but leave it at 1[W] and add "and is immobilized (save ends)." onto the hit line and "and is slowed (save ends)." on the miss line. This way it is clear what you want from us (which i think is what you are shooting for) and we can break through all the other stuff into saying what we really need to say. We can cut through the formatting, differences and try to find the base root of problems and their solutions. Playtester:
For a playtester you need to give them complete context. You need to give them a complete look at a single instance of these changes in play and have them run a game (or a sim). For a playtester you would need to give them a character with the new updated abilities on their sheet with everything calculated to work for them and say "go". Then record data they give back and use it to see whether the changes you have already made make sense solving the problem. This method is good for some things and not as good for others. When there is actual play involved you will have an easier time getting people invested and be able to get real data to see if your solutions seem to be fixing the problem. Lets just say this is the numbers application of the designer changes. A lot of what we do here in CharOp uses these methods, but not all. Examples include the DPR king thread and references used for specific builds. Think of this as a holistic look at the end result. You built a tool for them, now they are using that tool in a little sandbox. Gamer:
Many of the people replying and much of CharOp obviously fall into this category, for better or for worse. Gamers are the other end of the playtester. You built it, the playtester played it and now the Gamer is going to have a look at it. The Gamer is going to have 2 main things that are needed more than the other two groups. 1) A sizable beginning investment. Gamers are getting the tool and then going to try and run around and see what they are doing with it. If you are going to convince them to stop using their current tools, you have to give them enough power to entice them and enough substance and backing to promise your tool won't be broken. 2) A look at the exact specifics in relation to everything else in the field. An awesome small knife can get chucked aside when a Gamer has a multitool. For the same reason you have to show the Gamer why an Alan wrench is something worth their time to get worked up over. They don't need to be shown how you want it to be used in context (like the tester) or what problem you are intending for them to fix with that tool (like the designer) they just need to try and use it. The problem with getting all Gamer review is almost all the responses you will get are the ones that want to use the tool as a Mcguffin to all problems (and many here will go BORKED DO NOT IMPLEMENT) or will immediately toss it aside. Ok, that was actually a little exhausting. I hope it helped with the frame of mind for moving this project forward.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out hereSpoiler:
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 8:28PM
#97
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2012
|
You left out "find and install the old CB and oh yeah, according to WotC doing that violates their ToS and they have a C&D out against using CBLoader."
Again, no, that was included in the link. And CBLoader itself doesn't violate any copyrights. Their C&D is invalid.
Also "Download untrusted files from a complete stranger on the internet."
Well, not anything I can do about that. You either trust me or you don't. Gotta trust someone at some point, though. Or trust your antivirus.
It is not "simple." And, indeed, even if we were to do, we'd be reduced to manually going through everything in the CB and trying to find the changes you made compared to the originals. That is not "simple."
Well, like I said, as far as balance changes, for the most part I changed what the guides marked as purple or red. So there's a good place to start. Or you could open up the part files themselves. They're actually quite easy to read once you get used to them. And heck, I'd be happy even if no one went through specifically looking for problems, but instead just reported any problems they happened to run across.
Developers work in group documents, like wikis. They use formats that are actually useful and helpful.
Depends on the developer. And anyway, if we want to use your developer analogy, then since so far I'm doing all the work, I am the developer, and you guys are a focus group, or beta testers, or something of that nature. I didn't come here looking for partners. I came looking for feedback. If you want to provide the feedback as requested, I will be very grateful, but I'm not changing the scope of the project to suit your whims.
If you want a CharOp Wiki of 4e Fixes, feel free to make one yourself.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 8:32PM
#98
|
Date Joined:
May 13, 2012
|
Stuff
That's a long post and it's getting late. I'll read it in the morning.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 8:43PM
#99
|
|
|
Your legal opinion on whether CBLoader violates anything is somehow not compelling. Especially since this is WotC's forum and you're violating their ToS.
There is something you can do about. Use a reasonable method of disseminating information.
So just go hand-check each and every power marked red or purple for changes? Uh-huh.
You're the only person who has done any developing. That all the feedback you have gotten so far on that development is that it has been bad or unneccesary is not such a good thing for you. You're asking other people to give you better ideas. That means you're asking for help with development. Coding is something you assign to low-level guys once the actual developers are done, it is not the real meat of making a game system. So you've made some questionable changes and implemented them in a questionably legal manner in a piece of software it is no longer strictly legal to use unless you already had it installed. Grats?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 14, 2012 - 9:45PM
#100
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2011
|
To add another voice: I would also gladly participate in a wiki, but would not download the files and set up CBLoader and all that. If you're curious, I will try to write up a list of reasons for why I feel this way...there's a lot of them, just off the top of my head.
In terms of the 3 "big changes" you posted, I think others are overreacting. None of them are awful changes. The race one isn't nearly so big a deal as anyone claims (there's a handful of great races, and between them they cover pretty much every stat combo already, so all optimized builds will tend to use one of those races whether you use floating stats or not). I neither like the change nor dislike it.
The NADs and armor ones I actually like.
But in all 3 cases, the impact on the game is fairly minor and/or build-specific.
(Make a wiki!)
I am okay with you saying my argument is stupid, or commits the munchkin fallacy, or any other bad thing you want. Particularly if you give a reason/explanation for it.
However, I will ignore any post that calls me stupid, or a munchkin, or what have you. Not because it bothers me; I've just found that people only start name-calling when that's the best argument they have left.
|
|
|
