Actually it doesn't matter if they lied by definition or not
It does matter, as long as you keep misusing the word.
So you would be less offended if I used the phrase 'betrayed the fan base'?
No, it's not a lie. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.It does matter, as long as you keep misusing the word.[/quote]So you would be less offended if I used the phrase 'betrayed the fan base'?
I find it incredibly amusing that people will simultaneously criticize WotC for ignoring our feedback as well as not proceeding as they said they had wanted to.
I find it incredibly amusing that people will simultaneously criticize WotC for ignoring our feedback as well as not proceeding as they said they had wanted to.
When they say they are going to do one thing and then it turns out they were doing another thing the entire time (as was the case with the transition to the online CB) then that's a flat out lie.
Pretty much agree with this - that was definitely an ass move.
Pretty much agree with this - that was definitely an ass move.
I find it incredibly amusing that people will simultaneously criticize WotC for ignoring our feedback as well as not proceeding as they said they had wanted to.
Actually we don't mind if they have a decent reason for 'changing direction' as long as they actually convey that to us instead of letting us think they are still working on the same project for 2 years and then pulling the switch of the bait and switch tactic on us.
For instance they hyped the virtual table for 2+ years like it was on the way and then out of nowhere they pop this 2d 3rd party less features than the free ones virtual table on us, one that didn't look like any of the many demos that were still on youtube. Many people felt betrayed because they bought 4E because they were promised a way to play online (people like me that live in the middle of nowhere and can't get a game together), when that didn't materialize, they kept hyping and eventually 'beta' tested a much inferior one, and eventually they dropped that one.
Actually we don't mind if they have a decent reason for 'changing direction' as long as they actually convey that to us instead of letting us think they are still working on the same project for 2 years and then pulling the switch of the bait and swi
I find it incredibly amusing that people will simultaneously criticize WotC for ignoring our feedback as well as not proceeding as they said they had wanted to.
I had a similar thought when I observed the reactions to the news that they were decoupling magic systems from the classes.
I had a similar thought when I observed the reactions to the news that they were decoupling magic systems from the classes.
I find it incredibly amusing that people will simultaneously criticize WotC for ignoring our feedback as well as not proceeding as they said they had wanted to.
I had a similar thought when I observed the reactions to the news that they were decoupling magic systems from the classes.
There's a huge difference. They didn't say we aren't going to do that, all the while in the back room busily doing just that. Big difference...
I had a similar thought when I observed the reactions to the news that they were decoupling magic systems from the classes.[/quote]There's a huge difference. They didn't say we aren't going to do that, all the while in the back room busily doing just
There's a huge difference. They didn't say we aren't going to do that, all the while in the back room busily doing just that. Big difference...
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I've learned over the years that incompetence is more common than you think.
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand
Actually it doesn't matter if they lied by definition or not
It does matter, as long as you keep misusing the word.
So you would be less offended if I used the phrase 'betrayed the fan base'?
Yeah. Betrayal is rather severe. What they did is DISSAPOINT the fanbase, and even then not all of them.
No, it's not a lie. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.It does matter, as long as you keep misusing the word.[/quote]So you would be less offended if I used the phrase 'betrayed the fan base'?[/quote]Yeah. Bet
"Betrayal" is too extreme and "dsappoint" is not quite enough.
"Were disrespectful to" covers it. And I think the communication has been a lot more open since then, so I think they have taken the lessons of that debacle to heart.
"Betrayal" is too extreme and "dsappoint" is not quite enough."Were disrespectful to" covers it. And I think the communication has been a lot more open since then, so I think they have taken the lessons of that debacle to heart.
There's a huge difference. They didn't say we aren't going to do that, all the while in the back room busily doing just that. Big difference...
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I've learned over the years that incompetence is more common than you think.
So you are saying the programming lead didn't know what they were working on for months when he came out and said he knew that we would like what they were working on and that it would complement, not replace what we already had? I mean you seriously think that? If that were the case he should have been fired immediately.
Regardless of the words you want to use to describe it, customers felt betrayed and were not satisfied, no amount of apologist discussion will change that. You can say I'm using the wrong word, but the sentiment is the same. People felt betrayed by WotC business practices. They are going to have to eat some crow to get back in those customers good graces. They lost trust. If they ask us to trust them many, many customers will walk away. That's why they need to come on the forums and start talking with people because that will build some of that lost trust...
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand
"Betrayal" is too extreme and "disappoint" is not quite enough.
"Were disrespectful to" covers it. And I think the communication has been a lot more open since then, so I think they have taken the lessons of that debacle to heart.
Betrayal might be too extreme sounding, but 'were disrespectful to' isn't quite there... We need something between the two...
Betrayal might be too extreme sounding, but 'were disrespectful to' isn't quite there... We need something between the two...
There's a huge difference. They didn't say we aren't going to do that, all the while in the back room busily doing just that. Big difference...
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I've learned over the years that incompetence is more common than you think.
So you are saying the programming lead didn't know what they were working on for months when he came out and said he knew that we would like what they were working on and that it would complement, not replace what we already had? I mean you seriously think that? If that were the case he should have been fired immediately.
Actually it's pretty plausible. Most of the code whether it's web based or a download would be the same. In fact almost all of it. He might very well have been led to believe that the web thing was additive. They may have decided at the last minute to drop the download option and he might have been completely in the dark about that.
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand
(people like me that live in the middle of nowhere and can't get a game together)
Anyone else feel like we found the root of Lokiare's problem?
I don't know if it's the actual root, but it's definitely a part of the whole. I suppose if you can't actually get enough people together to play with, it eventually takes a toll on your outlook of the game and its designers by association. Kind of sad, actually. Sort of like a kid with a massive playground full of awesome things to play on, but no other kids are ever around to join in the fun. Makes the see-saw a point of contention, not to mention fairly useless. Of course, blaming the see-saw and whoever made it for the lack of other kids being around seems strange, but hey...I suppose taking it out on internet strangers is better than internalizing it all.
Anyone else feel like we found the root of Lokiare's problem?[/quote]I don't know if it's the actual root, but it's definitely a part of the whole. I suppose if you can't actually get enough people together to play with, it eventually takes a toll on
Actually it's pretty plausible. Most of the code whether it's web based or a download would be the same. In fact almost all of it. He might very well have been led to believe that the web thing was additive. They may have decided at the last minute to drop the download option and he might have been completely in the dark about that.
It's very plausible. Designers and co-workers throw each other under the bus and leave each other holding the bag on a constant basis in every line of work. Game design shouldn't be an exception to that. The guy designing it won't publicly take the blame because "the bosses pulled the plug". The bosses won't take the blame publicly because "the designers dropped the ball". What you end up with is a mess that no one wants to take responsibility for, so they try their best to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened. Sounds more reasonable than a company-wide conspiracy to fool the public into believing that they're not buying products from an evil corporation hell-bent on screwing over their fans. But...I've been wrong before. I have an ex-wife that is proof of that, and a current wife that will attest to it whole heartedly.
It's very plausible. Designers and co-workers throw each other under the bus and leave each other holding the bag on a constant basis in every line of work. Game design shouldn't be an exception to that. The guy designing it won't publicly take the b
There's a huge difference. They didn't say we aren't going to do that, all the while in the back room busily doing just that. Big difference...
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I've learned over the years that incompetence is more common than you think.
Exactly. All I can do is at all the THEY'RE LYING!!!!! nonsense. There are a vast number of reasons why some statement might not match reality. That includes things like the listener didn't understand what was being said. Also a lot of this kind of thing is incredibly minor and nitpicky. Someone says something, and then some rules lawyer comes by and decides that the exact meaning of the words when dissected means OMG!, which is incredibly unlikely and ridiculous, but of course we can't just take what anyone says on INTENT, it is our MISSION to find the 'lies'.
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand
There's a huge difference. They didn't say we aren't going to do that, all the while in the back room busily doing just that. Big difference...
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I've learned over the years that incompetence is more common than you think.
So you are saying the programming lead didn't know what they were working on for months when he came out and said he knew that we would like what they were working on and that it would complement, not replace what we already had? I mean you seriously think that? If that were the case he should have been fired immediately.
Regardless of the words you want to use to describe it, customers felt betrayed and were not satisfied, no amount of apologist discussion will change that. You can say I'm using the wrong word, but the sentiment is the same. People felt betrayed by WotC business practices. They are going to have to eat some crow to get back in those customers good graces. They lost trust. If they ask us to trust them many, many customers will walk away. That's why they need to come on the forums and start talking with people because that will build some of that lost trust...
I'm sorry, this is all just so overblown. The old CB and MB didn't cease to exist or become unusable when the new ones were released. So exactly how much of a 'lie' is it to say "this new thing complements this thing you already have"??? Now, maybe we can look at it and say, to ourselves "Yeah, there's a bit of PR spin here, 'complement' might as well mean 'replace' in the longer term" but this is a 'lie' on the order of what every advertiser on Earth does when they say "Our product is the bestest one ever on the whole Earth", which they do all the freegin time. Its a corporation. It does 'corporation things', like every other corporation. That includes spinning its product decisions. People need to grow up. Really, WotC is no worse than TSR (which also got its share of hate back in the day BTW, though that seems all forgotten now) which regularly advertised vapor products, sometimes backordered stuff for months, promised to do things they never did, withdrew products or fained to produce support for them, etc. Every retail software development company of any consequence whatsoever has produced vaporware, often tons of it, discontinued products, screwed people on support, etc etc etc.
Meanwhile it is a major issue if WotC decided to change strategy on a product where they had NEVER PROMISED there would be a standalone CB at any time, and instead delivered an online CB. The tragedy of it all. I'm sure you can come up with a whole long list of similar things, but please don't go to the trouble, they're equally picayune.
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand
"Betrayal" is too extreme and "disappoint" is not quite enough.
"Were disrespectful to" covers it. And I think the communication has been a lot more open since then, so I think they have taken the lessons of that debacle to heart.
Betrayal might be too extreme sounding, but 'were disrespectful to' isn't quite there... We need something between the two...
Nobody disappointed ME at all. I think you all need to take responsibility for your own feelings. It isn't up to WotC to coddle you and make sure that every single person on Earth that might consider buying their product is mature and sensible enough to understand that you don't always get your way, and that throwing hissy fits about it is generally considered behaviour worthy of toddlers, a market segment I'm pretty sure D&D is not aimed at... (though there are times when I begin to think, well, lets not go there).
Betrayal might be too extreme sounding, but 'were disrespectful to' isn't quite there... We need something between the two...[/quote]Nobody disappointed ME at all. I think you all need to take responsibility for your own feelings. It isn't up to WotC
Actually it's pretty plausible. Most of the code whether it's web based or a download would be the same. In fact almost all of it. He might very well have been led to believe that the web thing was additive. They may have decided at the last minute to drop the download option and he might have been completely in the dark about that.
It's very plausible. Designers and co-workers throw each other under the bus and leave each other holding the bag on a constant basis in every line of work. Game design shouldn't be an exception to that. The guy designing it won't publicly take the blame because "the bosses pulled the plug". The bosses won't take the blame publicly because "the designers dropped the ball". What you end up with is a mess that no one wants to take responsibility for, so they try their best to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened. Sounds more reasonable than a company-wide conspiracy to fool the public into believing that they're not buying products from an evil corporation hell-bent on screwing over their fans. But...I've been wrong before. I have an ex-wife that is proof of that, and a current wife that will attest to it whole heartedly.
I don't find it terribly plausible. While some amount of code might well be reused in both products software development teams operate in an environment where a high degree of detailed communication is necessary. If you were talking about a HUGE shop, like MS or one that was VERY distributed and segmented like some defense/aerospace projects I've worked on then maybe. In a team of 5-10 people working on delivering a small product on a tight schedule it is beyond implausible IMHO.
It was just spin. It may also have represented some degree of changing plans that happened after that statement. They may have THOUGHT that it would be a marginal amount of work to provide support for both online and offline programs, at least for some period of time. Later they found out that even though the data formats and basic 'engine' are the same that supporting the UI updates for 2 versions of the program was simply infeasible and they had to terminate the offline software support. Remember, 4e was developed on a plan that assumed a HUGE increase in sales and a massive number of DDI users such that they were planning to make 10's of millions of $ off DDI. All these statements were made smack in the middle of the train wreck that was plan meeting reality. A lot of stuff was said, but DDI has like what, 75k users at say $8 each, which is maybe a million bucks a year right now (assuming the DDI group size means something, which is plausible). There's a HUGE difference between what you plan to do with say $25 million in cashflow and $1 million in cashflow. Frankly it is somewhat of a miracle there is any DDI at all given the magnitude of the misstep in basic planning that the whole adventure represents.
It's very plausible. Designers and co-workers throw each other under the bus and leave each other holding the bag on a constant basis in every line of work. Game design shouldn't be an exception to that. The guy designing it won't publicly take the b
The reason I am not interested, is that the interviewer in question is someone I personally find adversarial, aggressive, and generally not someone's opinion I respect or care about.
Heh... That's how I feel about 90% of the people on these boards.
Heh...That's how I feel about 90% of the people on these boards.:rofl:
"Heh... That's how I feel about 90% of the people on these boards."
You're wrong! WRONG I TELL YOU!
Everyone here is the soul of reason and never argues endlessly and pointlessly or makes personal attacks, and if you think they do then you are a baby-eating liar!
TAKE IT BACK!
"Heh...That's how I feel about 90% of the people on these boards."You're wrong! WRONG I TELL YOU!Everyone here is the soul of reason and never argues endlessly and pointlessly or makes personal attacks, and if you think they do then you are a baby-ea
The reason I am not interested, is that the interviewer in question is someone I personally find adversarial, aggressive, and generally not someone's opinion I respect or care about.
Heh... That's how I feel about 90% of the people on these boards.
But not me, right?! I'm in the 10% .... oh, please, I so want to be in the 10%....
Heh...That's how I feel about 90% of the people on these boards.:rofl:[/quote]But not me, right?! I'm in the 10% .... oh, please, I so want to be in the 10%....:excited:
"Heh... That's how I feel about 90% of the people on these boards."
You're wrong! WRONG I TELL YOU!
Everyone here is the soul of reason and never argues endlessly and pointlessly or makes personal attacks, and if you think they do then you are a baby-eating liar!
TAKE IT BACK!
Mmmm.....babies.
Er, um, I mean.... *coughs*....I've said too much.
*goes and hides*
Mmmm.....babies.Er, um, I mean.... *coughs*....I've said too much.*goes and hides*
The reason I am not interested, is that the interviewer in question is someone I personally find adversarial, aggressive, and generally not someone's opinion I respect or care about.
Heh... That's how I feel about 90% of the people on these boards.
But not me, right?! I'm in the 10% .... oh, please, I so want to be in the 10%....
Even if we don't always agree on things, you're generally one of the more reasonable people on these boards, I'd assume you are in the 10%.
Heh...That's how I feel about 90% of the people on these boards.:rofl:[/quote]But not me, right?! I'm in the 10% .... oh, please, I so want to be in the 10%....:excited:[/quote]Even if we don't always agree on things, you're generally one of the mor
I was actually being facetious. I really hate when threads devolve into who's in the cool crowd and who is not. I had enough of that in high school. Nobody should care who is in Robin's 90%; nobody should care about Steely Dan's opinion of posters. Nobody should care about what I think of posters either. Let's just talk about and, more importantly, play D&D.
I was actually being facetious. I really hate when threads devolve into who's in the cool crowd and who is not. I had enough of that in high school. Nobody should care who is in Robin's 90%; nobody should care about Steely Dan's opinion of posters
There's a huge difference. They didn't say we aren't going to do that, all the while in the back room busily doing just that. Big difference...
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I've learned over the years that incompetence is more common than you think.
So you are saying the programming lead didn't know what they were working on for months when he came out and said he knew that we would like what they were working on and that it would complement, not replace what we already had? I mean you seriously think that? If that were the case he should have been fired immediately.
Actually it's pretty plausible. Most of the code whether it's web based or a download would be the same. In fact almost all of it. He might very well have been led to believe that the web thing was additive. They may have decided at the last minute to drop the download option and he might have been completely in the dark about that.
Ah, no. You probably don't know this but .Net code (which is what they used for both) doesn't just drop into a web program or a stand alone program. The fact is part of the online builder is run in the browser and part is run on the back-end. There is no way that the programming lead (you know the guy in charge) did not know they were creating a replacement as the code would not have been usable in an offline builder...
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand
(people like me that live in the middle of nowhere and can't get a game together)
Anyone else feel like we found the root of Lokiare's problem?
I don't know if it's the actual root, but it's definitely a part of the whole. I suppose if you can't actually get enough people together to play with, it eventually takes a toll on your outlook of the game and its designers by association. Kind of sad, actually. Sort of like a kid with a massive playground full of awesome things to play on, but no other kids are ever around to join in the fun. Makes the see-saw a point of contention, not to mention fairly useless. Of course, blaming the see-saw and whoever made it for the lack of other kids being around seems strange, but hey...I suppose taking it out on internet strangers is better than internalizing it all.
Yeah, I'm currently in a weekly 4E game using Fantasy Grounds, so all of that is completely wrong.
Anyone else feel like we found the root of Lokiare's problem?[/quote]I don't know if it's the actual root, but it's definitely a part of the whole. I suppose if you can't actually get enough people together to play with, it eventually takes a toll on
Actually it's pretty plausible. Most of the code whether it's web based or a download would be the same. In fact almost all of it. He might very well have been led to believe that the web thing was additive. They may have decided at the last minute to drop the download option and he might have been completely in the dark about that.
It's very plausible. Designers and co-workers throw each other under the bus and leave each other holding the bag on a constant basis in every line of work. Game design shouldn't be an exception to that. The guy designing it won't publicly take the blame because "the bosses pulled the plug". The bosses won't take the blame publicly because "the designers dropped the ball". What you end up with is a mess that no one wants to take responsibility for, so they try their best to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened. Sounds more reasonable than a company-wide conspiracy to fool the public into believing that they're not buying products from an evil corporation hell-bent on screwing over their fans. But...I've been wrong before. I have an ex-wife that is proof of that, and a current wife that will attest to it whole heartedly.
The problem is that in this case Paolo was the one that designed the system, supposedly he knew what he was doing. Throwing each other under the bus doesn't account for what happened. They redesigned the character builder and knew they were not going to support the old one, yet the person responsible for designing the new one and overseeing the updates to the old one told us what was a total lie. He knew all about both sides. It wasn't one developer throwing the other under the bus. It was one developer that oversaw both projects.
There's a huge difference. They didn't say we aren't going to do that, all the while in the back room busily doing just that. Big difference...
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I've learned over the years that incompetence is more common than you think.
Exactly. All I can do is at all the THEY'RE LYING!!!!! nonsense. There are a vast number of reasons why some statement might not match reality. That includes things like the listener didn't understand what was being said. Also a lot of this kind of thing is incredibly minor and nitpicky. Someone says something, and then some rules lawyer comes by and decides that the exact meaning of the words when dissected means OMG!, which is incredibly unlikely and ridiculous, but of course we can't just take what anyone says on INTENT, it is our MISSION to find the 'lies'.
How can we misinterpret "Will not replace, but will complement" when in reality what happened was "will replace, but won't complement". I'm not seeing how you can even say something like we misinterpreted it.
As to being minor and nit-picky, we waited several months for an update that we were paying for and didn't receive it, instead they told us we would get a new tool that would complement the ones we had (at the time we had the offline character and monster builders). I wouldn't call that minor or nit-picky. People lost money over this.
There was no word dissection. It was straight forward and there was little room for misinterpretation. Any attempt to imply otherwise is ignorant. Why is it so hard to admit that they made a business mistake? Why do some people refuse to realize that WotC doesn't employ masters of business? Their managers made a mistake and their programming lead made a mistake and that mistake was deceiving their customer base.
Its like implying that a woman tripped and stabbed her husband 36 times with an ice pick, and that it was an accident...
There's a huge difference. They didn't say we aren't going to do that, all the while in the back room busily doing just that. Big difference...
If they say they are doing X and they are doing Y and X != Y then yes they are lying. But you seem to assign that label a little too freely and without any real proof. Also keep in mind that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I've learned over the years that incompetence is more common than you think.
So you are saying the programming lead didn't know what they were working on for months when he came out and said he knew that we would like what they were working on and that it would complement, not replace what we already had? I mean you seriously think that? If that were the case he should have been fired immediately.
Regardless of the words you want to use to describe it, customers felt betrayed and were not satisfied, no amount of apologist discussion will change that. You can say I'm using the wrong word, but the sentiment is the same. People felt betrayed by WotC business practices. They are going to have to eat some crow to get back in those customers good graces. They lost trust. If they ask us to trust them many, many customers will walk away. That's why they need to come on the forums and start talking with people because that will build some of that lost trust...
I'm sorry, this is all just so overblown. The old CB and MB didn't cease to exist or become unusable when the new ones were released.
Actually they put all the new stuff from Dragon and Dungeon as well as books that were released a few months before that time into the new one and didn't put it in the old one. If you wanted to play in Dark Sun you had to use the new builder and couldn't use the old builder. In addition the errata made the old builder obsolete. So yes in fact the old CB became unusable after that point.
So exactly how much of a 'lie' is it to say "this new thing complements this thing you already have"??? Now, maybe we can look at it and say, to ourselves "Yeah, there's a bit of PR spin here, 'complement' might as well mean 'replace' in the longer term" but this is a 'lie' on the order of what every advertiser on Earth does when they say "Our product is the bestest one ever on the whole Earth", which they do all the freegin time. Its a corporation. It does 'corporation things', like every other corporation.
I can't get over the fact that corporations are given the rights of people and yet are businesses, but they can get away with doing things that people are not allowed to, and people excuse them. If someone told you they were making a pinata for you and it was going to be a cow and filled with candy and it would cost you a one time payment of $15, and when they gave it to you they said "We had to change directions" and gave you a sphere filled with banana chips, you wouldn't be like "well it happens" you would demand your money back and be angry. Quit cutting corporations slack because the norm is to get screwed over.
That includes spinning its product decisions. People need to grow up. Really, WotC is no worse than TSR (which also got its share of hate back in the day BTW, though that seems all forgotten now) which regularly advertised vapor products, sometimes backordered stuff for months, promised to do things they never did, withdrew products or fained to produce support for them, etc. Every retail software development company of any consequence whatsoever has produced vaporware, often tons of it, discontinued products, screwed people on support, etc etc etc.
Yeah, people grew up and realized they didn't have to take the crap that TSR was dishing out and they shouldn't regress to allowing it from the current company. Just because something is the norm doesn't mean we have to accept it. We can hold them up to a reasonable standard of doing what they tell us or at the least communicating when they 'change direction'.
Meanwhile it is a major issue if WotC decided to change strategy on a product where they had NEVER PROMISED there would be a standalone CB at any time, and instead delivered an online CB. The tragedy of it all. I'm sure you can come up with a whole long list of similar things, but please don't go to the trouble, they're equally picayune.
They sure didn't promise it, they did however tell us the new would complement the old and it didn't. It replaced it. They also took peoples money on a monthly basis without letting them know they were swapping over. They even did a push to get people to go for a year subscription to 'get in while the prices were low' so they would 'get access to the new tools at the lower price'. Not to mention in the same thread where Paolo was talking the posters were saying if it was an online version of the CB that would replace the old one that they would be very disappointed.
"Betrayal" is too extreme and "disappoint" is not quite enough.
"Were disrespectful to" covers it. And I think the communication has been a lot more open since then, so I think they have taken the lessons of that debacle to heart.
Betrayal might be too extreme sounding, but 'were disrespectful to' isn't quite there... We need something between the two...
Nobody disappointed ME at all. I think you all need to take responsibility for your own feelings. It isn't up to WotC to coddle you and make sure that every single person on Earth that might consider buying their product is mature and sensible enough to understand that you don't always get your way, and that throwing hissy fits about it is generally considered behavior worthy of toddlers, a market segment I'm pretty sure D&D is not aimed at... (though there are times when I begin to think, well, lets not go there).
Yes, I'm sure there was a portion of the WotC apologist crowd that wasn't affected by the 'changing direction' of WotC business practices. However many of the apologist crowd left at that point including Dane McCardy who was pretty much the loudest apologist there was. I like how you equate calling out a companies faults as 'throwing hissy fits' and 'behavior worth of toddles'. It isn't about 'getting our way'. Its about not getting bilked out of our money because WotC says one thing builds up to it grabs at our money and then does another entirely different thing...
It's very plausible. Designers and co-workers throw each other under the bus and leave each other holding the bag on a constant basis in every line of work. Game design shouldn't be an exception to that. The guy designing it won't publicly take the b
How can we misinterpret "Will not replace, but will complement" when in reality what happened was "will replace, but won't complement"
How you can misinterpret it is a very good question. Considering you still don't understand what happened, I'm not sure. What they said was they were introducing a new online builder. That's it. You, and many like you, assumed this meant that they were going to do two parallel development paths, even when they never said it. What they did say was they weren't going to force you to uninstall or intentionally break the offline builder. They never said anything about continuing to provide updates for it, the idea that you think they did is simply pure fiction.
How can we misinterpret "Will not replace, but will complement" when in reality what happened was "will replace, but won't complement"How you can misinterpret it is a very good question. Considering you still don't understand what happened, I'm not
How can we misinterpret "Will not replace, but will complement" when in reality what happened was "will replace, but won't complement"
How you can misinterpret it is a very good question. Considering you still don't understand what happened, I'm not sure. What they said was they were introducing a new online builder. That's it. You, and many like you, assumed this meant that they were going to do two parallel development paths, even when they never said it. What they did say was they weren't going to force you to uninstall or intentionally break the offline builder. They never said anything about continuing to provide updates for it, the idea that you think they did is simply pure fiction.
No, what Paolo said was "The new tool will complement the existing tools (CB and MB at that time), we think you will be pleasantly surprised." Or something very close to that. That you can't see the lie in that is your own WotC apologist blindness at work...
No, what Paolo said was "The new tool will complement the existing tools (CB and MB at that time), we think you will be pleasantly surprised." Or something very close to that. That you can't see the lie in that is your own WotC apologist blindness at
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Meanwhile it is a major issue if WotC decided to change strategy on a product where they had NEVER PROMISED there would be a standalone CB at any time, and instead delivered an online CB. The tragedy of it all. I'm sure you can come up with a whole long list of similar things, but please don't go to the trouble, they're equally picayune.
Funny thing is, to me, the new CB is better than the old one. Right at first it had some bugs, and a couple things were missing, but even then I prefered it in total.
Funny thing is, to me, the new CB is better than the old one. Right at first it had some bugs, and a couple things were missing, but even then I prefered it in total.
No, what Paolo said was "The new tool will complement the existing tools (CB and MB at that time), we think you will be pleasantly surprised." Or something very close to that. That you can't see the lie in that is your own WotC apologist blindness at work...
This is going to be a dumb question I know, but have you ever thought that maybe since you're pretty much the only one repeating this bit ad nauseum (seriously, it got old a long time ago), that maybe you're the one in the wrong? That maybe - just maybe - you did in fact misinterpret things?
Or, failing that, was it really that big a deal? I mean, we're talking about a game here. Oh no, they said they were going to do something some time ago (months? years? How long ago was it?), and they didn't do it. Is that really that much of a disruption to your daily life?
Seriously, let it go. It's unhealthy, and a bit unhinged, quite frankly.
This is going to be a dumb question I know, but have you ever thought that maybe since you're pretty much the only one repeating this bit ad nauseum (seriously, it got old a long time ago), that maybe you're the one in the wrong? That maybe - just ma
No, what Paolo said was "The new tool will complement the existing tools (CB and MB at that time), we think you will be pleasantly surprised." Or something very close to that. That you can't see the lie in that is your own WotC apologist blindness at work...
This is going to be a dumb question I know, but have you ever thought that maybe since you're pretty much the only one repeating this bit ad nauseum (seriously, it got old a long time ago), that maybe you're the one in the wrong? That maybe - just maybe - you did in fact misinterpret things?
Or, failing that, was it really that big a deal? I mean, we're talking about a game here. Oh no, they said they were going to do something some time ago (months? years? How long ago was it?), and they didn't do it. Is that really that much of a disruption to your daily life?
Seriously, let it go. It's unhealthy, and a bit unhinged, quite frankly.
At the time it was a huge deal and many people left because of it. Also the mass exodus to Pathfinder happened right around that point. That time was when Pathfinder started claiming breaking their own sales records and speculation that Pathfinder was doing better than 4E.
I've examined it from a logical perspective and I was here through it. Some of you were here through that too, apparently you don't remember the huge controversy and loss of a large group of WotC apologists including Dane McCardy. There was also a huge dip in DDi subscriptions at that point.
Repeating a fact that people don't seem to see or understand is my attempt to educate those people that think WotC can't do anything wrong. They can and did. There is direct evidence and it wasn't the only time. Once you step out of your thought process that WotC is perfect and that its ok for a corporation to treat their customers the way a pathological lier treats people, then you can look at the evidence and realize that they have treated their customers badly. Then you can come to the conclusion that taking a little heat on the Forums when they post is probably getting off light. In fact some of the people that weren't there will probably take some heat that they don't deserve, but eventually if the post on a regular basis they will then get peoples respect back and the communication can begin...
This is going to be a dumb question I know, but have you ever thought that maybe since you're pretty much the only one repeating this bit ad nauseum (seriously, it got old a long time ago), that maybe you're the one in the wrong? That maybe - just ma
Repeating a fact that people don't seem to see or understand is my attempt to educate those people that think WotC can't do anything wrong. -snip- Once you step out of your thought process that WotC is perfect.
Where has anyone made the precise claim that WotC can't do anything wrong? Where has anyone made the claim that WotC is perfect? Really not being snarky here. I'm genuinely curious if someone actually said either of those things.
If you're so embittered by WotC's actions, why do you still play their game? Why are you a member of their forums? Why aren't you raising some kind of public protest and picketing WotC headquarters? Why haven't you reported them to the Better Business Bureau for shady business practices? Why aren't you boycotting them? It seems as though you possess some deep knowledge of their business practices that none of the rest of us possess. Why not use it to your advantage? I know I sure would, were I in your position.
Where has anyone made the precise claim that WotC can't do anything wrong? Where has anyone made the claim that WotC is perfect? Really not being snarky here. I'm genuinely curious if someone actually said either of those things.If you're so embitter
Repeating a fact that people don't seem to see or understand is my attempt to educate those people that think WotC can't do anything wrong. -snip- Once you step out of your thought process that WotC is perfect.
Where has anyone made the precise claim that WotC can't do anything wrong? Where has anyone made the claim that WotC is perfect? Really not being snarky here. I'm genuinely curious if someone actually said either of those things.
It has been strongly implied by several posters when they try to justify the unjustifiable. They try to spin the actions of WotC like the main stream media spins government malfeasance.
If you're so embittered by WotC's actions, why do you still play their game? Why are you a member of their forums?
I love D&D, just because WotC bought the rights to it doesn't excuse them from doing bad business practices. I'm a member of their forums because I like discussing D&D, nothing more. Its literally the best place to discuss D&D.
Why aren't you raising some kind of public protest and picketing WotC headquarters? Why haven't you reported them to the Better Business Bureau for shady business practices?
As we've seen with the occupy protests, they don't get jack done. Its a waste of time to protest outside of a companies headquarters. It certainly isn't worth the plane ticket to get half way across the country along with the hotel stays and the other related costs. The Better Business Bureau is pretty much a scam as described here in great detail.
Why aren't you boycotting them? It seems as though you possess some deep knowledge of their business practices that none of the rest of us possess. Why not use it to your advantage? I know I sure would, were I in your position.
I actually did boycott them for awhile, but that didn't change their practices. It would take a mass boycott or exodus of their customers to make them realize what's going on, of course that only works if they can put 2 and 2 together. They had a mass exodus of customers to Pathfinder and Paizo and they still don't understand that good customer service and quality products are what gets and keeps customers. You'd think they would have figured it out by now...
I don't have insider information, I do have a general knowledge of business (I minored in business in college) and how it works as well as experience from both sides of the customer and business relationship. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where they went wrong... or maybe it does...
Where has anyone made the precise claim that WotC can't do anything wrong? Where has anyone made the claim that WotC is perfect? Really not being snarky here. I'm genuinely curious if someone actually said either of those things.[/quote]It has been s
People left 4e because of 4e and not some character builder. I was amongst those groups that left during that time and I never used any version of the character builder. D&D had a powerful brand built up. It took a while for people to try the game and then reject it for Pathfinder.
The developers were likely told they were doing an additional piece of web code using a common backend. That's all they knew. The decision to not support the downloadable character builder is one that could easily have been decided purely for business reasons at the last second. I imagine the loss of DDi subscribers led them to try to force people to be a member all the time and not once every three or four months.
I think you are a conspiracy theorist Lokiare. At least with regards to D&D. I suspect other areas too though from what I've seen you mention. Thats you right but it doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy into it.
@LokiarePeople left 4e because of 4e and not some character builder. I was amongst those groups that left during that time and I never used any version of the character builder. D&D had a powerful brand built up. It took a while for people to try
At the time it was a huge deal and many people left because of it.
Or, yanno, it's a game, so it's not really a huge deal in the first place.
Also the mass exodus to Pathfinder happened right around that point.
I'm sure the thing you claimed WotC lied about was the only reason behind that, and not people liking Pathfinder - either because they didn't like 4E, or because they actually just liked Pathfinder.
I've examined it from a logical perspective and I was here through it. Some of you were here through that too, apparently you don't remember the huge controversy and loss of a large group of WotC apologists including Dane McCardy. There was also a huge dip in DDi subscriptions at that point.
I wasn't here because I didn't, and don't, like 4E. So I really have no idea if anything you're saying is accurate in the least.
Repeating a fact that people don't seem to see or understand is my attempt to educate those people that think WotC can't do anything wrong. They can and did.
Nobody has said WotC didn't do anything wrong. And even if they did (and you have no proof they lied as opposed to changed their minds or whatever), so what? That's the only thing you ever bring up, and you bring it up again, and again, and again. Like I said earlier, it's old. I don't know what exactly is past "glue" when it comes to beating a dead horse, but please let me know as I'm genuinely curious, and you've clearly got it figured out.
There is direct evidence and it wasn't the only time. Once you step out of your thought process that WotC is perfect and that its ok for a corporation to treat their customers the way a pathological lier treats people, then you can look at the evidence and realize that they have treated their customers badly.
I can't step out of a thought process I'm not in. In fact, I'm certainly not in it, because WotC brought us 4E, which quite frankly, I didn't care for and thought it sucked. So if thinking something sucks is somehow thinking that the company that made it is perfect...well, okay then. Guilty as charged, I guess.
Then you can come to the conclusion that taking a little heat on the Forums when they post is probably getting off light. In fact some of the people that weren't there will probably take some heat that they don't deserve, but eventually if the post on a regular basis they will then get peoples respect back and the communication can begin...
No, I can't come to that conclusion, because that conclusion is sadistic and somewhat sociopathic. "You'll only get my respect after you take whatever abuse I deem is fitting in response to these things I think you did wrong" is, by definition, a horrible and sick thing.
Were I one of the designers, not only would I not want the respect of such a person, I wouldn't want them playing my game in the first place.
Or, yanno, it's a game, so it's not really a huge deal in the first place.I'm sure the thing you claimed WotC lied about was the only reason behind that, and not people liking Pathfinder - either because they didn't like 4E, or because they actually
People left 4e because of 4e and not some character builder. I was amongst those groups that left during that time and I never used any version of the character builder. D&D had a powerful brand built up. It took a while for people to try the game and then reject it for Pathfinder.
The developers were likely told they were doing an additional piece of web code using a common backend. That's all they knew. The decision to not support the downloadable character builder is one that could easily have been decided purely for business reasons at the last second. I imagine the loss of DDi subscribers led them to try to force people to be a member all the time and not once every three or four months.
I think you are a conspiracy theorist Lokiare. At least with regards to D&D. I suspect other areas too though from what I've seen you mention. Thats you right but it doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy into it.
I like how I start showing facts and people start trotting out the 'conspiracy theorist' nonsense excuse to ignore the facts of the matter. I could just as well call you a WotC fan boy, but that wouldn't change the facts or further the discussion which is why I don't call people names or try to categorize them into little boxes to feel safe.
Your anecdotal evidence is not as compelling as the factual evidence of Paolo's statement and the subsequent loss of subscriptions which happened almost 2 years after the release of the 4E. Also if you knew how .NET and Silverlight work you would know what you proposed is impossible. Especially since the Silverlight portion requires server side programming and client side programming and since the database changed between the two versions (you can verify this by deconstructing the database that was in the offline version at the last update and the downloaded database that the online version downloads to your computer every time it updates). So no, they weren't using the same database structure which means they intended to only support the online version.
Also if all of that weren't true, your personal speculation doesn't prove anything. The facts of the matter are that the programming lead (the guy in charge of designing and implementing both character builders) came out and either lied outright, or didn't understand his job and was letting a subordinate do his work (which is unlikely in such a small company). Please look into it and quit spouting nonsense to try to support your insupportable position...
I like how I start showing facts and people start trotting out the 'conspiracy theorist' nonsense excuse to ignore the facts of the matter. I could just as well call you a WotC fan boy, but that wouldn't change the facts or further the discussion whi
This thread is starting to derail off topic with signs of baiting. This is against Code of Conduct and prohibited on our forums.
If this continues I will have to return and take further action.
Please keep the discussion clean and most importantly, fun.
Greetings,This thread is starting to derail off topic with signs of baiting. This is against Code of Conduct and prohibited on our forums.If this continues I will have to return and take further action.Please keep the discussion clean and most import
@Lokiare Yeah this thread is going nowhere on this subject. I just don't agree with how you interpret events. You seem to weight the likelihood of foul play higher than I do. Unless more evidence surfaces, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the facts we have.
@LokiareYeah this thread is going nowhere on this subject. I just don't agree with how you interpret events. You seem to weight the likelihood of foul play higher than I do. Unless more evidence surfaces, we'll just have to agree to disagree on th
No, what Paolo said was "The new tool will complement the existing tools (CB and MB at that time), we think you will be pleasantly surprised." Or something very close to that. That you can't see the lie in that is your own WotC apologist blindness at work...
This is going to be a dumb question I know, but have you ever thought that maybe since you're pretty much the only one repeating this bit ad nauseum (seriously, it got old a long time ago), that maybe you're the one in the wrong? That maybe - just maybe - you did in fact misinterpret things?
Lokiare is right about this one.
Not only did WotC pull the old switch-a-roo with the new Character Builder, but there was also reports that if you tried to update your offline CB then it would be corrupted (and of course no where to download a new copy)
This is going to be a dumb question I know, but have you ever thought that maybe since you're pretty much the only one repeating this bit ad nauseum (seriously, it got old a long time ago), that maybe you're the one in the wrong? That maybe - just ma
Not only did WotC pull the old switch-a-roo with the new Character Builder, but there was also reports that if you tried to update your offline CB then it would be corrupted (and of course no where to download a new copy)
Okay, so it's up to two people saying so. Either way, my other point remains: is there any reason whatsoever to keep beating that dead horse? I mean, if it happened, it happened. What benefit are folks getting from continuing to bitch about it?
Okay, so it's up to two people saying so. Either way, my other point remains: is there any reason whatsoever to keep beating that dead horse? I mean, if it happened, it happened. What benefit are folks getting from continuing to bitch about it?
Not only did WotC pull the old switch-a-roo with the new Character Builder, but there was also reports that if you tried to update your offline CB then it would be corrupted (and of course no where to download a new copy)
Okay, so it's up to two people saying so. Either way, my other point remains: is there any reason whatsoever to keep beating that dead horse? I mean, if it happened, it happened. What benefit are folks getting from continuing to bitch about it?
The most important reason to remember what happened in the past is when we consider whether or not WotC will continue to support the online CB when they make the shift to DnD Next.
Okay, so it's up to two people saying so. Either way, my other point remains: is there any reason whatsoever to keep beating that dead horse? I mean, if it happened, it happened. What benefit are folks getting from continuing to bitch about it?[/quot
The most important reason to remember what happened in the past is when we consider whether or not WotC will continue to support the online CB when they make the shift to DnD Next.
My bet is no, they will not. I'm sure if they do have an online builder, it will be dedicated to DDN. But since the people that seem to be up in arms about it aren't DDI subscribers anyway, I think it's a moot point.
My bet is no, they will not. I'm sure if they do have an online builder, it will be dedicated to DDN.But since the people that seem to be up in arms about it aren't DDI subscribers anyway, I think it's a moot point.
The most important reason to remember what happened in the past is when we consider whether or not WotC will continue to support the online CB when they make the shift to DnD Next.
My bet is no, they will not. I'm sure if they do have an online builder, it will be dedicated to DDN. But since the people that seem to be up in arms about it aren't DDI subscribers anyway, I think it's a moot point.
Yep, pretty much. So I don't see why there is much worry about it.
My bet is no, they will not. I'm sure if they do have an online builder, it will be dedicated to DDN.But since the people that seem to be up in arms about it aren't DDI subscribers anyway, I think it's a moot point. [/quote]Yep, pretty much. So I don
The most important reason to remember what happened in the past is when we consider whether or not WotC will continue to support the online CB when they make the shift to DnD Next.
My bet is no, they will not. I'm sure if they do have an online builder, it will be dedicated to DDN. But since the people that seem to be up in arms about it aren't DDI subscribers anyway, I think it's a moot point.
I was a DDI subscriber for years until I realised that it was not worth the $10 a month to subscribe.
I think about the time the Magazine editor decided not to combine the individual articles into a single pdf.
But that is a different issue to what Lokiare is talking about.
L: You can not trust WotC.
A: Why is that?
L: Look what they said before changing the CB.
A: There is no evidence of that.
S: Actually yes there is.
A: OK, well that maybe true but you are not even a subscriber to DDI anyway.
S: Well that just completely misses the point
My bet is no, they will not. I'm sure if they do have an online builder, it will be dedicated to DDN.But since the people that seem to be up in arms about it aren't DDI subscribers anyway, I think it's a moot point. [/quote]I was a DDI subscriber for
If it is a different issue, then why did you bring it up? I was simply answering your question about whether the CB will be supported after the DDN switch-over.
If it is a different issue, then why did you bring it up? I was simply answering your question about whether the CB will be supported after the DDN switch-over.
If it is a different issue, then why did you bring it up? I was simply answering your question about whether the CB will be supported after the DDN switch-over.
Because the idea is that WotC has done many things to disillusion, lie to, betray, make people dislike them or whatever you want to call it, to their customers. The idea is to get those customers (which doesn't include you) back WotC will have to eat some crow. Posting on the forums and just ignoring some flak would be a great start. Issuing apologies would be even better. Heck if they apologized I'm sure most people would come back and give 5E a try...
Because the idea is that WotC has done many things to disillusion, lie to, betray, make people dislike them or whatever you want to call it, to their customers. The idea is to get those customers (which doesn't include you) back WotC will have to eat
the idea is that WotC has done many things to disillusion, lie to, betray, make people dislike them or whatever you want to call it, to their customers.
If it is a different issue, then why did you bring it up? I was simply answering your question about whether the CB will be supported after the DDN switch-over.
Because the idea is that WotC has done many things to disillusion, lie to, betray, make people dislike them or whatever you want to call it, to their customers. The idea is to get those customers (which doesn't include you) back WotC will have to eat some crow. Posting on the forums and just ignoring some flak would be a great start. Issuing apologies would be even better. Heck if they apologized I'm sure most people would come back and give 5E a try...
You're going overboard. You are right about the Paolo bit and the CB and MB change. But why this happened is not clear. Was it that they didn't allocate enough resources to the old CB patch or was it that they botched thinking it would matter or maybe to force people on board the online CB? We'll likely never know. But it was badly marketed. That must of been a PR nightmare for them and eventually they did give people their money back to those who asked for it.
You should stay in the realm of facts and that is WotC did loose the trust of a lot of users (I remember those days on another account) and didn't show respect to the subscribers of DDI. But to make the leap you are making in the quote above is ridiculus.
As for people leaving, there aren't any real proof of that, but yeah at that time there were a lot of people mad because of the CB switch, but also because of the lack of content and ponctuality of the online mags and the design shift that was Essentials (aka 4.5).
But what is your point anyway? That people shouldn't buy DnD products anymore?
Because the idea is that WotC has done many things to disillusion, lie to, betray, make people dislike them or whatever you want to call it, to their customers. The idea is to get those customers (which doesn't include you) back WotC will have to eat
If it is a different issue, then why did you bring it up? I was simply answering your question about whether the CB will be supported after the DDN switch-over.
Because the idea is that WotC has done many things to disillusion, lie to, betray, make people dislike them or whatever you want to call it, to their customers. The idea is to get those customers (which doesn't include you) back WotC will have to eat some crow. Posting on the forums and just ignoring some flak would be a great start. Issuing apologies would be even better. Heck if they apologized I'm sure most people would come back and give 5E a try...
You're going overboard. You are right about the Paolo bit and the CB and MB change. But why this happened is not clear. Was it that they didn't allocate enough resources to the old CB patch or was it that they botched thinking it would matter or maybe to force people on board the online CB? We'll likely never know. But it was badly marketed. That must of been a PR nightmare for them and eventually they did give people their money back to those who asked for it.
You should stay in the realm of facts and that is WotC did loose the trust of a lot of users (I remember those days on another account) and didn't show respect to the subscribers of DDI. But to make the leap you are making in the quote above is ridiculus.
As for people leaving, there aren't any real proof of that, but yeah at that time there were a lot of people mad because of the CB switch, but also because of the lack of content and ponctuality of the online mags and the design shift that was Essentials (aka 4.5).
But what is your point anyway? That people shouldn't buy DnD products anymore?
You're missing the point. Its doesn't matter why it happened it matters that it happened at all. It alienated a segment of the fan base. That's all that matters.
My point is that WotC has garnered some ire from previous and current customers and they are going to have to even it out in some way. For some this might just mean not repeating what they did wrong in the first place, for others it might mean a public apology or at least an acknowledgement of having messed up. For others they will have to earn back their trust by going a long time without doing anything even remotely untrustworthy. That was my point before it turned into a huge argument over what was done or why which is irrelevant. Its that it happened and what WotC is going to do to make it right...
Because the idea is that WotC has done many things to disillusion, lie to, betray, make people dislike them or whatever you want to call it, to their customers. The idea is to get those customers (which doesn't include you) back WotC will have to eat
If it is a different issue, then why did you bring it up? I was simply answering your question about whether the CB will be supported after the DDN switch-over.
Because the idea is that WotC has done many things to disillusion, lie to, betray, make people dislike them or whatever you want to call it, to their customers. The idea is to get those customers (which doesn't include you) back WotC will have to eat some crow. Posting on the forums and just ignoring some flak would be a great start. Issuing apologies would be even better. Heck if they apologized I'm sure most people would come back and give 5E a try...
You're going overboard. You are right about the Paolo bit and the CB and MB change. But why this happened is not clear. Was it that they didn't allocate enough resources to the old CB patch or was it that they botched thinking it would matter or maybe to force people on board the online CB? We'll likely never know. But it was badly marketed. That must of been a PR nightmare for them and eventually they did give people their money back to those who asked for it.
You should stay in the realm of facts and that is WotC did loose the trust of a lot of users (I remember those days on another account) and didn't show respect to the subscribers of DDI. But to make the leap you are making in the quote above is ridiculus.
As for people leaving, there aren't any real proof of that, but yeah at that time there were a lot of people mad because of the CB switch, but also because of the lack of content and ponctuality of the online mags and the design shift that was Essentials (aka 4.5).
But what is your point anyway? That people shouldn't buy DnD products anymore?
You're missing the point. Its doesn't matter why it happened it matters that it happened at all. It alienated a segment of the fan base. That's all that matters.
My point is that WotC has garnered some ire from previous and current customers and they are going to have to even it out in some way. For some this might just mean not repeating what they did wrong in the first place, for others it might mean a public apology or at least an acknowledgement of having messed up. For others they will have to earn back their trust by going a long time without doing anything even remotely untrustworthy. That was my point before it turned into a huge argument over what was done or why which is irrelevant. Its that it happened and what WotC is going to do to make it right...
They won't make it right, man. You can hope they learn from their mistake or that customer learn from WotC's behavior, but that is it.
You must let go.
Because the idea is that WotC has done many things to disillusion, lie to, betray, make people dislike them or whatever you want to call it, to their customers. The idea is to get those customers (which doesn't include you) back WotC will have to eat
They won't make it right, man. You can hope they learn from their mistake or that customer learn from WotC's behavior, but that is it.
You must let go.
Exactly. And I still stand by my point that demanding folks from WotC chat on the boards and just take flak is so far beyond wrong it isn't funny.
DnD desingers should be more present. If they were less people would talk against them. I am amazed at Paizo staff who talk regularly on the Paizo forums.
Exactly. And I still stand by my point that demanding folks from WotC chat on the boards and just take flak is so far beyond wrong it isn't funny.[/quote]DnD desingers should be more present. If they were less people would talk against them. I am ama
DnD desingers should be more present. If they were less people would talk against them. I am amazed at Paizo staff who talk regularly on the Paizo forums.
It's a chicken-and-egg scenario, really. When you have folks suggesting that WotC employees should just put up with an undetermined amount of abuse for an unspecified length of time, though, I can't find a way to fault those WotC employees for not showing up here.
The other side of the scenario is that the players need to just plain be nicer/better when they post - especially when they disagree with something the designers have done. Posting rants about how some particular thing sucks, is horrible, and the designers don't know what they're doing is hardly the way to do that.
It's a chicken-and-egg scenario, really. When you have folks suggesting that WotC employees should just put up with an undetermined amount of abuse for an unspecified length of time, though, I can't find a way to fault those WotC employees for not sh
DnD desingers should be more present. If they were less people would talk against them. I am amazed at Paizo staff who talk regularly on the Paizo forums.
It's a chicken-and-egg scenario, really. When you have folks suggesting that WotC employees should just put up with an undetermined amount of abuse for an unspecified length of time, though, I can't find a way to fault those WotC employees for not showing up here.
The other side of the scenario is that the players need to just plain be nicer/better when they post - especially when they disagree with something the designers have done. Posting rants about how some particular thing sucks, is horrible, and the designers don't know what they're doing is hardly the way to do that.
Its not a chicken or an egg thing. Its investing in future goodwill, taking a little flak now will pay off dividends later when the forums become nicer and players actually get a dialog going with the developers. We can point out problems and get immediate responses, something we have to wait 2-3 days for an article and 2 months for a play test update now for...
It's a chicken-and-egg scenario, really. When you have folks suggesting that WotC employees should just put up with an undetermined amount of abuse for an unspecified length of time, though, I can't find a way to fault those WotC employees for not sh
Its not a chicken or an egg thing. Its investing in future goodwill, taking a little flak now will pay off dividends later when the forums become nicer and players actually get a dialog going with the developers. We can point out problems and get immediate responses, something we have to wait 2-3 days for an article and 2 months for a play test update now for...
No, it's absolutely a chicken-and-egg scenario. On one hand, you have the developers who don't really have the time to be on here, and with the general tone of the boards, have no reason (either as developers or well-adjusted adults) to willingly subject themselves to an unknown level of abuse for an unspecified amount to time. On the other, you have at least a vocal portion of the players who apparently refuse to stop acting like children and speak to the developers in a polite, professional manner - without verbal abuse (or, "flak," as you call it).
I don't see either situation fixing itself anytime soon, personally.
No, it's absolutely a chicken-and-egg scenario. On one hand, you have the developers who don't really have the time to be on here, and with the general tone of the boards, have no reason (either as developers or well-adjusted adults) to willingly sub
Meh, they have the time, it takes 5 mins. Just give them the ability to moderate posters this way if anyone becomes nasty they can flush him right away.
You'll find that people are a lot more polite when talking to designers. There is a difference between yelling at an empty chair and actually yelling at someone with a certain authority.
Meh, they have the time, it takes 5 mins. Just give them the ability to moderate posters this way if anyone becomes nasty they can flush him right away.You'll find that people are a lot more polite when talking to designers. There is a difference bet
You'll find that people are a lot more polite when talking to designers. There is a difference between yelling at an empty chair and actually yelling at someone with a certain authority.
My experience on this forum says otherwise. Keith Baker used to post in the Eberron forum a lot, and Eberron fans love Keith Baker. And then someone threatened to find him and punch him for something he wrote about Eberron that the poster didn't like. And that person got banned. And then a crapstorm of vitriol and hate was unleashed and more people got suspensions and bans but the upshot is you don't see Keith Baker posting on these forums any more. Because Keith Baker doesn't want to spend his free time being a lightning rod and a moderator. And Keith Baker isn't even a Wizards employee!
These forums are not like other RPG forums. The D&D forums are the RPG forums people go to before they discover other forums like EnWorld, RPG.net, and even other RPGs. So you get more casual newbies passing through, more casual players, and more immature trolls looking for a wide audience. That's just the price you pay when you're the flagship for tabletop RPGs. There is a near-constant supply of transient trolls. Banning them is virtually inconsequential as they weren't planning to stay long anyway. They're just having fun in front of the largest (and first) RPG audience they can find.
My experience on this forum says otherwise. Keith Baker used to post in the Eberron forum a lot, and Eberron fans love Keith Baker. And then someone threatened to find him and punch him for something he wrote about Eberron that the poster didn't li
There is a near-constant supply of transient trolls. Banning them is virtually inconsequential as they weren't planning to stay long anyway. They're just having fun in front of the largest (and first) RPG audience they can find.
If they posted on DDI forums they could weed out most of the transient trolls; it would give the DDI subscription some value (which diminishes seemingly every month) and your now only dealing with the people willing to pay to be a troll. Transcripts can be made available for those without a subscript.
If they posted on DDI forums they could weed out most of the transient trolls; it would give the DDI subscription some value (which diminishes seemingly every month) and your now only dealing with the people willing to pay to be a troll. Transcripts
Designers are big boys and girls. They can block Loki and you'll have a bunch of sycophants cheering them on.
So in a scenario where the designers would get abused by someone (it doesn't matter who), and then ban them, the only people who would be cheering would be sycophants? And not, yanno, reasonable adults?
Interesting.
So in a scenario where the designers would get abused by someone (it doesn't matter who), and then ban them, the only people who would be cheering would be sycophants? And not, yanno, reasonable adults?Interesting.
So in a scenario where the designers would get abused by someone (it doesn't matter who), and then ban them, the only people who would be cheering would be sycophants? And not, yanno, reasonable adults?
Interesting.
No. A bunch doesn't mean all. But let's not kid ourselves. Their will be sycophants. Designer know this as it is showned in this video where they used the word sycophant...
So in a scenario where the designers would get abused by someone (it doesn't matter who), and then ban them, the only people who would be cheering would be sycophants? And not, yanno, reasonable adults?Interesting.[/quote]No. A bunch doesn't mean all
No, not "so be it". I don't like being abused, even on the internet. I'm only a forum guide and freelancewriter, and I can't tell you the crap that's been heaped at me. (Mostly because even repeating it would require violating the Code of Conduct.) And, no, it does not just roll off your back like water. When people say crap about my children, say they are going to hunt me down, say they will ruin my life, it affects you, even if you are fairly certain (but never entirely) that it's just internet bravado. I am certain that if I were a developer it would become intolerable and I for one wouldn't want to subject myself to it.
No, not "so be it". I don't like being abused, even on the internet. I'm only a forum guide and freelancewriter, and I can't tell you the crap that's been heaped at me. (Mostly because even repeating it would require violating the Code of Conduct.
No, not "so be it". I don't like being abused, even on the internet. I'm only a forum guide and freelancewriter, and I can't tell you the crap that's been heaped at me. (Mostly because even repeating it would require violating the Code of Conduct.) And, no, it does not just roll off your back like water. When people say crap about my children, say they are going to hunt me down, say they will ruin my life, it affects you, even if you are fairly certain (but never entirely) that it's just internet bravado. I am certain that if I were a developer it would become intolerable and I for one wouldn't want to subject myself to it.
Like I said, if you can't handle the baddies just block them/IP ban them. I do not want to be rude, but I will, if you can't emotionally handle internet tough guys you need to toughen up.
No, not "so be it". I don't like being abused, even on the internet. I'm only a forum guide and freelancewriter, and I can't tell you the crap that's been heaped at me. (Mostly because even repeating it would require violating the Code of Conduct.
Its not a chicken or an egg thing. Its investing in future goodwill, taking a little flak now will pay off dividends later when the forums become nicer and players actually get a dialog going with the developers. We can point out problems and get immediate responses, something we have to wait 2-3 days for an article and 2 months for a play test update now for...
No, it's absolutely a chicken-and-egg scenario. On one hand, you have the developers who don't really have the time to be on here, and with the general tone of the boards, have no reason (either as developers or well-adjusted adults) to willingly subject themselves to an unknown level of abuse for an unspecified amount to time. On the other, you have at least a vocal portion of the players who apparently refuse to stop acting like children and speak to the developers in a polite, professional manner - without verbal abuse (or, "flak," as you call it).
I don't see either situation fixing itself anytime soon, personally.
I'm sorry, but when they get your order wrong at the restaurant you are paying big money to eat at, you don't politely tell them for the 12th time that you wanted your steak rare, you get up shout at the manager and walk out. At that point you are not acting like a child, you are acting like an adult that has been repeatedly wronged while paying for it.
It also doesn't matter who started it or why. If the developers don't come talk on the forums 200 posters are not going to suddenly decide to be super polite and act nice without some kind of actual incentive like the developers coming to speak on the forums...
No, it's absolutely a chicken-and-egg scenario. On one hand, you have the developers who don't really have the time to be on here, and with the general tone of the boards, have no reason (either as developers or well-adjusted adults) to willingly sub
No, not "so be it". I don't like being abused, even on the internet. I'm only a forum guide and freelancewriter, and I can't tell you the crap that's been heaped at me. (Mostly because even repeating it would require violating the Code of Conduct.) And, no, it does not just roll off your back like water. When people say crap about my children, say they are going to hunt me down, say they will ruin my life, it affects you, even if you are fairly certain (but never entirely) that it's just internet bravado. I am certain that if I were a developer it would become intolerable and I for one wouldn't want to subject myself to it.
If anyone threatened that kind of stuff you should have turned it over to the police or FBI and let them arrest the fool that did it. It is a crime to threaten someone in any way shape or form...
No, not "so be it". I don't like being abused, even on the internet. I'm only a forum guide and freelancewriter, and I can't tell you the crap that's been heaped at me. (Mostly because even repeating it would require violating the Code of Conduct.
I'm sorry, but when they get your order wrong at the restaurant you are paying big money to eat at, you don't politely tell them for the 12th time that you wanted your steak rare, you get up shout at the manager and walk out. At that point you are not acting like a child, you are acting like an adult that has been repeatedly wronged while paying for it.
It also doesn't matter who started it or why. If the developers don't come talk on the forums 200 posters are not going to suddenly decide to be super polite and act nice without some kind of actual incentive like the developers coming to speak on the forums...
No, actually I don't get up and shout at the manager. You know why? Because I'm not 12 years old. I'm an adult. While I may well certainly have some very pointed words, I am not going to shout. Abusing another person - verbally or otherwise - is wrong, for any reason.
And if posters need some sort of incentive to be polite, then again, were I a developer, I wouldn't want them playing my game in the first place. There is absolutely no excuse for acting like a complete and total asshat. None. The fact that you're not only making excuses for doing so, but actively advocating it, speaks volumes.
No, actually I don't get up and shout at the manager. You know why? Because I'm not 12 years old. I'm an adult. While I may well certainly have some very pointed words, I am not going to shout. Abusing another person - verbally or otherwise - is wron
If anyone threatened that kind of stuff you should have turned it over to the police or FBI and let them arrest the fool that did it. It is a crime to threaten someone in any way shape or form...
Wizard si not in the business of teaching people basic civility If they didn't learn such things before oming to these forums, they should leave until they do learn it.
Wizard si not in the business of teaching people basic civility If they didn't learn such things before oming to these forums, they should leave until they do learn it.
if you can't emotionally handle internet tough guys you need to toughen up.
No, I don't. The emotionally abusive person needs to grow up and the community that tries to handwave away such behavior needs to get used to not getting direct communication with developers.
No, I don't. The emotionally abusive person needs to grow up and the community that tries to handwave away such behavior needs to get used to not getting direct communication with developers.
if you can't emotionally handle internet tough guys you need to toughen up.
No, I don't. The emotionally abusive person needs to grow up and the community that tries to handwave away such behavior needs to get used to not getting direct communication with developers.
Exactly. I find it somewhat disgusting that requesting that folks actually engage in civil discourse without abuse is somehow in the wrong. Ridiculous.
No, I don't. The emotionally abusive person needs to grow up and the community that tries to handwave away such behavior needs to get used to not getting direct communication with developers.[/quote]Exactly. I find it somewhat disgusting that reques
if you can't emotionally handle internet tough guys you need to toughen up.
No, I don't. The emotionally abusive person needs to grow up and the community that tries to handwave away such behavior needs to get used to not getting direct communication with developers.
Why should anyone change if you refuse to change yourself?
Anyway, not everyone can be amazing like me and not cry when someone disagrees with them.
See ya, kiddies.
/flys away
No, I don't. The emotionally abusive person needs to grow up and the community that tries to handwave away such behavior needs to get used to not getting direct communication with developers.[/quote]Why should anyone change if you refuse to change y
if you can't emotionally handle internet tough guys you need to toughen up.
No, I don't. The emotionally abusive person needs to grow up and the community that tries to hand wave away such behavior needs to get used to not getting direct communication with developers.
Exactly. I find it somewhat disgusting that requesting that folks actually engage in civil discourse without abuse is somehow in the wrong. Ridiculous.
We are asking for patience not telling you that its wrong to ask for civil discourse. What each person thinks civil discourse is, is different. When someone does something that is thought of as uncivil then they need to be told why it isn't civil and how to express the same ideas while being civil...
No, I don't. The emotionally abusive person needs to grow up and the community that tries to hand wave away such behavior needs to get used to not getting direct communication with developers.[/quote]Exactly. I find it somewhat disgusting that reque
We are asking for patience not telling you that its wrong to ask for civil discourse. What each person thinks civil discourse is, is different. When someone does something that is thought of as uncivil then they need to be told why it isn't civil and how to express the same ideas while being civil...
Bull. You want WotC employees to come on here and get abused. That's not patience. That's sociopathy. Learn the difference.
Bull. You want WotC employees to come on here and get abused. That's not patience. That's sociopathy. Learn the difference.
I do not need to change because I am not in the wrong. And as stated the issue is not disagreement, but abuse. Your consistent refusal to acknowledge the difference speaks volume abiut tje level of discourse you seek.
I do not need to change because I am not in the wrong. And as stated the issue is not disagreement, but abuse. Your consistent refusal to acknowledge the difference speaks volume abiut tje level of discourse you seek.
I do not need to change because I am not in the wrong. And as stated the issue is not disagreement, but abuse.
Your example was extreme and the minority. Too many people confuse disagreement with abuse.
Sure some people aren't polite and think they are talking to their buddy, but who cares? What is obvious is that people can't take disagreement.
Your consistent refusal to acknowledge the difference speaks volume abiut tje level of discourse you seek.
Hey look, a personal attack because I disagree with you (I must be an evil person who wants name calling and insults, because I do not see thing like you). Seems like I am right, people can't take disagreement.
But hey, I understand, no need to make a big case about it. I can still continue the conversation and so could a designer.
Your example was extreme and the minority. Too many people confuse disagreement with abuse.Sure some people aren't polite and think they are talking to their buddy, but who cares? What is obvious is that people can't take disagreement. Hey look, a pe
I do not need to change because I am not in the wrong. And as stated the issue is not disagreement, but abuse.
Your example was extreme and the minority. Too many people confuse disagreement with abuse.
True, but that confusion is not present in this case. There really is a difference, and abuse really does happen, and your refusal to accept it doesn't change that basic fact.
Also, what does the frequency or severity have to do with whether or not a thing occurs?
Your example was extreme and the minority. Too many people confuse disagreement with abuse.[/quote]True, but that confusion is not present in this case. There really is a difference, and abuse really does happen, and your refusal to accept it doesn'
I do not need to change because I am not in the wrong. And as stated the issue is not disagreement, but abuse.
Your example was extreme and the minority. Too many people confuse disagreement with abuse.
True, but that confusion is not present in this case. There really is a difference, and abuse really does happen, and your refusal to accept it doesn't change that basic fact.
Also, what does the frequency or severity have to do with whether or not a thing occurs?
I recognized that abuse happens. I said block/ban them.
It seems already forgotten.
Your example was extreme and the minority. Too many people confuse disagreement with abuse.[/quote]True, but that confusion is not present in this case. There really is a difference, and abuse really does happen, and your refusal to accept it doesn'
While the topic of civility on the forums is a good (and often necessary) conversation to have, we need to steer clear of talking about specific moderation actions and incidents. Whether intentionally or not, discussing moderation often gets contentious and can accidentally delve into personal and private information.
Let the Code of Conduct be your guide when deciding what and what not to post and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact Customer Service.
Thanks.
Howdy folks,While the topic of civility on the forums is a good (and often necessary) conversation to have, we need to steer clear of talking about specific moderation actions and incidents. Whether intentionally or not, discussing moderation often
Its not a chicken or an egg thing. Its investing in future goodwill, taking a little flak now will pay off dividends later when the forums become nicer and players actually get a dialog going with the developers. We can point out problems and get immediate responses, something we have to wait 2-3 days for an article and 2 months for a play test update now for...
No, it's absolutely a chicken-and-egg scenario. On one hand, you have the developers who don't really have the time to be on here, and with the general tone of the boards, have no reason (either as developers or well-adjusted adults) to willingly subject themselves to an unknown level of abuse for an unspecified amount to time. On the other, you have at least a vocal portion of the players who apparently refuse to stop acting like children and speak to the developers in a polite, professional manner - without verbal abuse (or, "flak," as you call it).
I don't see either situation fixing itself anytime soon, personally.
I'm sorry, but when they get your order wrong at the restaurant you are paying big money to eat at, you don't politely tell them for the 12th time that you wanted your steak rare, you get up shout at the manager and walk out. At that point you are not acting like a child, you are acting like an adult that has been repeatedly wronged while paying for it.
It also doesn't matter who started it or why. If the developers don't come talk on the forums 200 posters are not going to suddenly decide to be super polite and act nice without some kind of actual incentive like the developers coming to speak on the forums...
Uhm, if you start shouting at the manager your are in fact acting like a child. Whether or not the manager should be surprised by the response is a different story.
No, it's absolutely a chicken-and-egg scenario. On one hand, you have the developers who don't really have the time to be on here, and with the general tone of the boards, have no reason (either as developers or well-adjusted adults) to willingly sub
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
We want to keep the forums a fun place for people to feel welcomed!
I’ve also removed content from this thread because discussion of moderation in the forums is considered forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
If you have a question, problem, or would like to speak with someone about moderation in the forums please contact Customer Service here: wizards.custhelp.com/
Thanks Peeps! Happy Posting!
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so
Your consistent refusal to acknowledge the difference speaks volume abiut tje level of discourse you seek.
Hey look, a personal attack
That's not a personal attack. It's a commentary on your position. I.e., "tje [sic] level of discourse you seek."
because I disagree with you (I must be an evil person who wants name calling and insults, because I do not see thing like you).
And that's a straw man, since I didn't call you an evil person who wants name calling and insults. I haven't called you anything.
I can still continue the conversation and so could a designer.
At this point, I don't think referencing your own behavior on this thread is good support for your argument
Hey look, a personal attack[/quote]That's not a personal attack. It's a commentary on your position. I.e., "tje [sic] level of discourse you seek."And that's a straw man, since I didn't call you an evil person who wants name calling and insults. I
Your consistent refusal to acknowledge the difference speaks volume abiut tje level of discourse you seek.
Hey look, a personal attack
That's not a personal attack. It's a commentary on your position. I.e., "tje [sic] level of discourse you seek."
Of course it's a personal attack. Spin it as you want, you attacked my character and motivations. Rather ironic coming from someone who is complaining about the level of discourse on the boards.
because I disagree with you (I must be an evil person who wants name calling and insults, because I do not see thing like you).
And that's a straw man, since I didn't call you an evil person who wants name calling and insults. I haven't called you anything.
It's a hyberpole, champ. No need to take things to literal. It might help with your perception of the boards.
But do tell me about "the level of discourse that I seek". What did you mean by that? Please enlighten me. You seem to know what I want and if it is not insults and name calling, what is it? Cause it seemed pretty negative the way you said it.
I can still continue the conversation and so could a designer.
At this point, I don't think referencing your own behavior on this thread is good support for your argument
Funny stuff, you attacking me and then saying I am the problem.
I love how people rationalize their behavior and blame other people.
Hey look, a personal attack[/quote]That's not a personal attack. It's a commentary on your position. I.e., "tje [sic] level of discourse you seek."[/quote]Of course it's a personal attack. Spin it as you want, you attacked my character and motivati
Of course it's a personal attack. Spin it as you want
It's not a personal attack. I explained it and you don't beleive it, so there's really no point in continuing this conversation. I'll just leave the conversation where it stands as a record to others.
It's not a personal attack. I explained it and you don't beleive it, so there's really no point in continuing this conversation. I'll just leave the conversation where it stands as a record to others.
We are asking for patience not telling you that its wrong to ask for civil discourse. What each person thinks civil discourse is, is different. When someone does something that is thought of as uncivil then they need to be told why it isn't civil and how to express the same ideas while being civil...
Bull. You want WotC employees to come on here and get abused. That's not patience. That's sociopathy. Learn the difference.
Nope, that's what I see as a needed step to getting D&D back to the best game status. Part of it is for WotC to reap what they sowed, after that they can sow good and reap good, but if they never reap what they sowed before, they will never get the opportunity to sow anything else...especially if they don't communicate in any way shape or form outside articles...
Bull. You want WotC employees to come on here and get abused. That's not patience. That's sociopathy. Learn the difference.[/quote]Nope, that's what I see as a needed step to getting D&D back to the best game status. Part of it is for WotC to reap wh
I do not need to change because I am not in the wrong. And as stated the issue is not disagreement, but abuse.
Your example was extreme and the minority. Too many people confuse disagreement with abuse.
True, but that confusion is not present in this case. There really is a difference, and abuse really does happen, and your refusal to accept it doesn't change that basic fact.
Also, what does the frequency or severity have to do with whether or not a thing occurs?
If it turns into actual abuse the ORCs can exert some influence. Most of the time I get accused of being abusive when all I'm doing is disagreeing in a non-inflammatory manner.
Your example was extreme and the minority. Too many people confuse disagreement with abuse.[/quote]True, but that confusion is not present in this case. There really is a difference, and abuse really does happen, and your refusal to accept it doesn'
While the topic of civility on the forums is a good (and often necessary) conversation to have, we need to steer clear of talking about specific moderation actions and incidents. Whether intentionally or not, discussing moderation often gets contentious and can accidentally delve into personal and private information.
Let the Code of Conduct be your guide when deciding what and what not to post and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact Customer Service.
Thanks.
I wish the ORCs responded like this, it would improve things by at least 50%...
I wish the ORCs responded like this, it would improve things by at least 50%...
Nope, that's what I see as a needed step to getting D&D back to the best game status. Part of it is for WotC to reap what they sowed, after that they can sow good and reap good, but if they never reap what they sowed before, they will never get the opportunity to sow anything else...especially if they don't communicate in any way shape or form outside articles...
Wanting people to get abused is sociopathy. Or sadism, take your pick.
Otherwise, see my response to you in the other thread. I'm done with this conversation.
Wanting people to get abused is sociopathy. Or sadism, take your pick.Otherwise, see my response to you in the other thread. I'm done with this conversation.
Nope, that's what I see as a needed step to getting D&D back to the best game status. Part of it is for WotC to reap what they sowed, after that they can sow good and reap good, but if they never reap what they sowed before, they will never get the opportunity to sow anything else...especially if they don't communicate in any way shape or form outside articles...
Wanting people to get abused is sociopathy. Or sadism, take your pick.
Otherwise, see my response to you in the other thread. I'm done with this conversation.
Nice, so you didn't even read my post... good on you.
I don't want the developers to get abused. I do however feel it might be a necessary step for them to get the loyalty of their customers back.
Its just the same as a child breaking a bone and it healing back at the wrong angle and the doctor has to re-break the bone in order to set it to heal properly. Would you tell that child they shouldn't have to endure the pain of the breakage or the uncomfortable cast they have to wear aftewards in order to live a normal life and not have a deformed limb for the rest of their life?
I'm not being sadistic or anything like that. I'm looking at the paths ahead and realizing that sometimes you have to take a harder path to reach a higher goal...
Wanting people to get abused is sociopathy. Or sadism, take your pick.Otherwise, see my response to you in the other thread. I'm done with this conversation.[/quote]Nice, so you didn't even read my post... good on you.I don't want the developers to g
Of course it's a personal attack. Spin it as you want
It's not a personal attack. I explained it and you don't beleive it, so there's really no point in continuing this conversation. I'll just leave the conversation where it stands as a record to others.
Of course it was spin. It was a negative comment on my character and motivations.
But hey, better to run than to admit it.
It's not a personal attack. I explained it and you don't beleive it, so there's really no point in continuing this conversation. I'll just leave the conversation where it stands as a record to others. [/quote]Of course it was spin. It was a negativ
Users are still being unruly despite repeated in thread warnings, so let's just put this one to pasture since it's not going anywhere at all.
Submitted for VCL review.
Users are still being unruly despite repeated in thread warnings, so let's just put this one to pasture since it's not going anywhere at all.Submitted for VCL review.
hehehe.
at all the THEY'RE LYING!!!!! nonsense. There are a vast number of reasons why some statement might not match reality. That includes things like the listener didn't understand what was being said. Also a lot of this kind of thing is incredibly minor and nitpicky. Someone says something, and then some rules lawyer comes by and decides that the exact meaning of the words when dissected means OMG!, which is incredibly unlikely and ridiculous, but of course we can't 
just take what anyone says on INTENT, 
it is our MISSION to find the 'lies'. 
