|
4 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 1:13PM
#21
|
|
|
I think it would be interesting to see what the numbers shows. The top and bottom in popularity would be cool to know. Really what is the worst that could happen, a lack of interest in Purple Dragon Knight kicking off another edition war thread?
NO ONE LIKES PURPLE DRAGON KNIGHT?! RAAAAAAAGE!
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 8:14PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2012
|
Id say the inherit problem is that if you are looking at the data from ddi you 1) are not looking at random data (same problem that you have with the feedback) 2) you have the potential issue that obviously if you are using a computer program to make your characters you prefer the easier cleaner characters over the more complex one. 3) You must assume that the data from ddi is truly representative of the population. I would argue that this is a horrible assumption to make in part because of number 2. 4) This assumes that everyone who uses ddi actually used ddi to make their paragon choices as well. (A likely case). but the total ddi subscribers includes encounters players. These players should be ignored unless they actually made a paragon choice.
In other words Id caution against using ddi info to make an inference about the population of d&d players. While Id assume ddi is representative of the population I would want to make certain first.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 8:33PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2012
|
The biggest problem here is that ddi only shows what people played. NOT what people like. This is an important consideration. A person may not have chosen a paragon path he loved because 1) Dm didn't allow it 2) it didn't fit his character concept 3) The book came out too late after his character was already made and or selected a paragon path.
In other words ddi does not show what paragon paths people most want/enjoyed. It only shows the ones that actually got chosen. This could be bad as it will show the majorities second choice as potentially never being chosen even though they would love that to be an option
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 10:58PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
There are 10 avvies per page. I just want to know the number of pages. I'll multiply that by 10 myself.
There's currently 7872 pages. (with last page having 9 members)
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 19, 2013 - 4:21AM
#25
|
- Here be Dragons next 100 km
|
Id say the inherit problem is that if you are looking at the data from ddi you 1) are not looking at random data (same problem that you have with the feedback)
Selection bias happens in any form of data gathering, even if it's only in the form of "we only surveyed people who like responding to surveys". At least in this case the bias should have little to do with peoples' preference in paragon paths.
2) you have the potential issue that obviously if you are using a computer program to make your characters you prefer the easier cleaner characters over the more complex one.
Really? My own assumption would have been that, if anything, having the CB "do the math" for you would make it easier to build more complex characters that way than manually.
3) You must assume that the data from ddi is truly representative of the population. I would argue that this is a horrible assumption to make in part because of number 2. 4) This assumes that everyone who uses ddi actually used ddi to make their paragon choices as well. (A likely case). but the total ddi subscribers includes encounters players. These players should be ignored unless they actually made a paragon choice. In other words Id caution against using ddi info to make an inference about the population of d&d players. While Id assume ddi is representative of the population I would want to make certain first.
WotC presumably have a good idea that a certain percentage of characters may be using predetermined paths, and can take that into account when weighing the data.
If anything, I'd say the likely selection bias from using DDI is that it doesn't reflect the overall popularity of certain sourcebooks. In the general 4e-playing population, if a book sold particularly poorly, any paragon paths included in that book will be similarly under-represented, because few people will have access to them. However, to anyone using DDI and the CB, those paragon paths will be just as accessible as any other, so they'll be chosen on their merits.
Personally I'd say that sort of bias is actually a positive one. If a sourcebook didn't sell well because it was too "niche" or had generally poor content, but it happened to include a particularly good Paragon Path, then that PP would get short shrift in any survey of general gamers - but on the Character Builder that Paragon Path stands on its own merits, and the data will provide a truer indication of its popularity.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 19, 2013 - 4:41AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
There is plently of information in the CB to use. The issue is interpeting it. That will take a lot of work because of the nature of paragon paths. It is a forced choice at a level many players do not reach that is heavility dependent on your ability choices and class choice at level 1 and whose options were heavily limited by the date of creation and the telease dates of the books and DDI artiles that contained.
To the poor sap who has to analyze that info, you have my sympathy. You have plenty of work to do.
I wouldn't bother trying this with epic destinies. I can't expect there being many "played all the way to epic"PCs in the CB sine they constant say "not one plays epic". Tons of misleading one-shots most likely.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
