It clearly has the ability to handle the custom information, but in its static state, it pretty much rips the guts out of what makes D&D cool...the ability to go off the rails and make your own stuff.
My DM keeps giving out cool custom equipment and its becoming very difficult to implement them.
Seems like WOTC had a real problem with people ripping them off, but no problem ripping off their customers.
T
Will the Online Character Builder ever have a robust house rule option (i.e., "show illegal options" and "add house rule feat")?
We plan to progressively increase the capabilities and the feature set of the Online Character Builder to include house rules. This will include both the creation of custom items and the ability to add extra feats, powers, and skill training to a character. The idea is to have these capabilities in the Character Builder before the fall.
So they are admitting they made the switch to the Online Character Builder a whole 12 months too soon.
Funny you should ask... as Today's Rule of Three provides some insight.Will the Online Character Builder ever have a robust house rule option (i.e., "show illegal options" and "add house rule feat")?
We plan to progressively increase the capabilities and the feature set of the Online Character Builder to include house rules. This will include both the creation of custom items and the ability to add extra feats, powers, and skill training to a character. The idea is to have these capabilities in the Character Builder before the fall.
So they are admitting they made the switch to the Online Character Builder a whole 12 months too soon.
It should be noted that WoTC isn't very good at guessing time frames / sticking to schedules.
*snark* nor did they mention which fall (2020?) */snark*
Right now, our characters are simply a list of options that the software assembles into a character. Think of it like a checklist. The amount of user entered data is very minimal (name, age, weight, and a few others from the details page) and thus there is vastly less data that WotC needs to store at their end. The more user entered data that needs to be stored, the more the WotC data storage and servers need to expanded. This would explain the disappearance of the extensive journaling feature available in the offline CB. No mention has been made of that ever being brought back, probably because it would require a massive expansion of info storage for WotC.
Any thoughts?
...Any thoughts?
Yes. Storage is cheap. I suspect that virtually nothing is being based upon trying to control the amount of storage, except maybe portraits, but that, too, would be easily handled by simply limiting the file size.
I think that other considerations are at work here...
I've been doing a lot of thinking about why there is no customization ability in the new CB when the old one had it (albeit at a basic, primitive level). Many programmers have come on these forums to say that a lot of the new code is simply ported over from the old builder, so why did they remove houseruling? I suspect it has something to do with data storage and the WotC server system. It's not that they can't do it, it's that they won't do it.
Right now, our characters are simply a list of options that the software assembles into a character. Think of it like a checklist. The amount of user entered data is very minimal (name, age, weight, and a few others from the details page) and thus there is vastly less data that WotC needs to store at their end. The more user entered data that needs to be stored, the more the WotC data storage and servers need to expanded. This would explain the disappearance of the extensive journaling feature available in the offline CB. No mention has been made of that ever being brought back, probably because it would require a massive expansion of info storage for WotC.
Any thoughts?
Except that text storage is tiny, for instance a full ebook (without pictures) is just a few MB in size. The characters are stored similarly. Combine that with the fact that server storage is dirt cheap and you get a no go with your theory...
I've been doing a lot of thinking about why there is no customization ability in the new CB when the old one had it (albeit at a basic, primitive level). Many programmers have come on these forums to say that a lot of the new code is simply ported over from the old builder, so why did they remove houseruling? I suspect it has something to do with data storage and the WotC server system. It's not that they can't do it, it's that they won't do it.
Right now, our characters are simply a list of options that the software assembles into a character. Think of it like a checklist. The amount of user entered data is very minimal (name, age, weight, and a few others from the details page) and thus there is vastly less data that WotC needs to store at their end. The more user entered data that needs to be stored, the more the WotC data storage and servers need to expanded. This would explain the disappearance of the extensive journaling feature available in the offline CB. No mention has been made of that ever being brought back, probably because it would require a massive expansion of info storage for WotC.
Any thoughts?
It really depends "how" characters are being stored on their side. If they are using some sort of SQL DB (and why wouldn't they for performance reasons) then customization is not as easy as it used to be. The old storage method was a plain XML file on your local drive. Adding extra data to that is moronically simple. All you need is a code "class" that "serializes" the data and you're done. Now that they are using (my assumption) some sort of SQL DB they need to make a lot more code changes in order to read in all the data related to your PC depending on how their DB is configured. For example: If they have a column in the "Character" table that is named "Level1EncounterPower" then they have a problem because while setting a single numeric value in that field for the ability that you chose is easy, there is no way to magically "add" an extra column for another "Level1EncounterPower" without changing the table and the code. On the other hand if "powers" is a separate table and has a 1:many relationship to "Character" then you're back to easy street for adding more "powers". I could speculate tons more, but it won't really get us anywhere.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about why there is no customization ability in the new CB when the old one had it (albeit at a basic, primitive level). Many programmers have come on these forums to say that a lot of the new code is simply ported over from the old builder, so why did they remove houseruling? I suspect it has something to do with data storage and the WotC server system. It's not that they can't do it, it's that they won't do it.
Right now, our characters are simply a list of options that the software assembles into a character. Think of it like a checklist. The amount of user entered data is very minimal (name, age, weight, and a few others from the details page) and thus there is vastly less data that WotC needs to store at their end. The more user entered data that needs to be stored, the more the WotC data storage and servers need to expanded. This would explain the disappearance of the extensive journaling feature available in the offline CB. No mention has been made of that ever being brought back, probably because it would require a massive expansion of info storage for WotC.
Any thoughts?
Except that text storage is tiny, for instance a full ebook (without pictures) is just a few MB in size. The characters are stored similarly. Combine that with the fact that server storage is dirt cheap and you get a no go with your theory...
Care to debate data "normalization"?
I've been doing a lot of thinking about why there is no customization ability in the new CB when the old one had it (albeit at a basic, primitive level). Many programmers have come on these forums to say that a lot of the new code is simply ported over from the old builder, so why did they remove houseruling? I suspect it has something to do with data storage and the WotC server system. It's not that they can't do it, it's that they won't do it.
Right now, our characters are simply a list of options that the software assembles into a character. Think of it like a checklist. The amount of user entered data is very minimal (name, age, weight, and a few others from the details page) and thus there is vastly less data that WotC needs to store at their end. The more user entered data that needs to be stored, the more the WotC data storage and servers need to expanded. This would explain the disappearance of the extensive journaling feature available in the offline CB. No mention has been made of that ever being brought back, probably because it would require a massive expansion of info storage for WotC.
Any thoughts?
It really depends "how" characters are being stored on their side. If they are using some sort of SQL DB (and why wouldn't they for performance reasons) then customization is not as easy as it used to be. The old storage method was a plain XML file on your local drive. Adding extra data to that is moronically simple. All you need is a code "class" that "serializes" the data and you're done. Now that they are using (my assumption) some sort of SQL DB they need to make a lot more code changes in order to read in all the data related to your PC depending on how their DB is configured. For example: If they have a column in the "Character" table that is named "Level1EncounterPower" then they have a problem because while setting a single numeric value in that field for the ability that you chose is easy, there is no way to magically "add" an extra column for another "Level1EncounterPower" without changing the table and the code. On the other hand if "powers" is a separate table and has a 1:many relationship to "Character" then you're back to easy street for adding more "powers". I could speculate tons more, but it won't really get us anywhere.
Actually my feeling is that data stored in a relational database is far easier to manipulate than XML, which I think does not scale well. I think that, most likely, the data is stored in SQL Server which produces the XML files, but, who knows? I certainly could be wrong.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about why there is no customization ability in the new CB when the old one had it (albeit at a basic, primitive level). Many programmers have come on these forums to say that a lot of the new code is simply ported over from the old builder, so why did they remove houseruling? I suspect it has something to do with data storage and the WotC server system. It's not that they can't do it, it's that they won't do it.
Right now, our characters are simply a list of options that the software assembles into a character. Think of it like a checklist. The amount of user entered data is very minimal (name, age, weight, and a few others from the details page) and thus there is vastly less data that WotC needs to store at their end. The more user entered data that needs to be stored, the more the WotC data storage and servers need to expanded. This would explain the disappearance of the extensive journaling feature available in the offline CB. No mention has been made of that ever being brought back, probably because it would require a massive expansion of info storage for WotC.
Any thoughts?
It really depends "how" characters are being stored on their side. If they are using some sort of SQL DB (and why wouldn't they for performance reasons) then customization is not as easy as it used to be. The old storage method was a plain XML file on your local drive. Adding extra data to that is moronically simple. All you need is a code "class" that "serializes" the data and you're done. Now that they are using (my assumption) some sort of SQL DB they need to make a lot more code changes in order to read in all the data related to your PC depending on how their DB is configured. For example: If they have a column in the "Character" table that is named "Level1EncounterPower" then they have a problem because while setting a single numeric value in that field for the ability that you chose is easy, there is no way to magically "add" an extra column for another "Level1EncounterPower" without changing the table and the code. On the other hand if "powers" is a separate table and has a 1:many relationship to "Character" then you're back to easy street for adding more "powers". I could speculate tons more, but it won't really get us anywhere.
Actually my feeling is that data stored in a relational database is far easier to manipulate than XML, which I think does not scale well. I think that, most likely, the data is stored in SQL Server which produces the XML files, but, who knows? I certainly could be wrong.
My point went to the OP's question. The coding that goes behind generating/parsing an XML file is a LOT different from what you do when interacting with a relational DB. And that how they normalized the data determines to a great extent IF they are able to store "home rules" for bonus feats/powers and the like without a redesign of both the DB and the code's interaction with said data.
My point went to the OP's question. The coding that goes behind generating/parsing an XML file is a LOT different from what you do when interacting with a relational DB. And that how they normalized the data determines to a great extent IF they are able to store "home rules" for bonus feats/powers and the like without a major redesign of both the DB and the code's interaction with said data.
Well, since WotC is going to provide for a lot of customization by the fall (more or less), I guess however it's done they'll figure it out.
I just hope it works better than the off-line version and customization will actually work with all the math. That would be nice and, to me at least, is a basic requirement for any sort of character builder. The original builder fell somewhat short is this area - I am hopeful the new one will do better it is slow going getting there for sure.
My point went to the OP's question. The coding that goes behind generating/parsing an XML file is a LOT different from what you do when interacting with a relational DB. And that how they normalized the data determines to a great extent IF they are able to store "home rules" for bonus feats/powers and the like without a major redesign of both the DB and the code's interaction with said data.
Well, since WotC is going to provide for a lot of customization by the fall (more or less), I guess however it's done they'll figure it out.
I just hope it works better than the off-line version and customization will actually work with all the math. That would be nice and, to me at least, is a basic requirement for any sort of character builder. The original builder fell somewhat short is this area - I am hopeful the new one will do better it is slow going getting there for sure.
The old builder customisation was, as we say in the uk.."PANTS !". It was so limited we may as well never have had it. Since the update in February i actually now prefer the new builder although i do want more from it. Keep it coming WOTC and if we have to wait till autumn to get the customisation stuff then so be it.
So the new CB already has the capability to store this type of non-uniform info.
It seems pretty hard to believe that it will take them a whole year (likely more) simply to make that information editable in the online version.
Sounds like some goofball marketing/business driven decision, not a technical one.
part of my point originally is that they already support "home ruled" characters. all you need to do is customize your character in the old CB and import it.
So the new CB already has the capability to store this type of non-uniform info.
It seems pretty hard to believe that it will take them a whole year (likely more) simply to make that information editable in the online version.
Sounds like some goofball marketing/business driven decision, not a technical one.
If I mess up the quote I apologize ahead of time.
Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to incompetence (or in this case a lack of time).
Look at how long we went without a GUI checkbox for Inherent bonuses. They only have so many programmers and between bug fixes and new features we can only get so much per month. I expect that this particular feature will take a redesign of their front end with substantial code changes which to my way of thinking is a lot harder than adding a single checkbox and a few lines of code. It will also fall victim to their coding priorities. How important is the ability to add extra feats vs. I don't know...custom items, or the old CB character sheet, or displaying the math for all your powers (to hit/damage), or customizing which power cards print out, etc. This is the kind of business decision that the community COULD have an impact on if it were to speak with one voice. We want feature X to be bumped up. The same as what happened with the export feature.
If I mess up the quote I apologize ahead of time.
Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to incompetence (or in this case a lack of time).
Look at how long we went without a GUI checkbox for Inherent bonuses. They only have so many programmers and between bug fixes and new features we can only get so much per month. I expect that this particular feature will take a redesign of their front end with substantial code changes which to my way of thinking is a lot harder than adding a single checkbox and a few lines of code. It will also fall victim to their coding priorities. How important is the ability to add extra feats vs. I don't know...custom items, or the old CB character sheet, or displaying the math for all your powers (to hit/damage), or customizing which power cards print out, etc. This is the kind of business decision that the community COULD have an impact on if it were to speak with one voice. We want feature X to be bumped up. The same as what happened with the export feature.
Well put and I wonder why that thought hasn't spawned the idea of a user wishlist with voting. That way if there is an item they want input on for prioritizing they get it right from the user commuity.
If I mess up the quote I apologize ahead of time.
Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to incompetence (or in this case a lack of time).
Look at how long we went without a GUI checkbox for Inherent bonuses. They only have so many programmers and between bug fixes and new features we can only get so much per month. I expect that this particular feature will take a redesign of their front end with substantial code changes which to my way of thinking is a lot harder than adding a single checkbox and a few lines of code. It will also fall victim to their coding priorities. How important is the ability to add extra feats vs. I don't know...custom items, or the old CB character sheet, or displaying the math for all your powers (to hit/damage), or customizing which power cards print out, etc. This is the kind of business decision that the community COULD have an impact on if it were to speak with one voice. We want feature X to be bumped up. The same as what happened with the export feature.
Well put and I wonder why that thought hasn't spawned the idea of a user wishlist with voting. That way if there is an item they want input on for prioritizing they get it right from the user commuity.
Wizards would never solicit that kind of information. And everyone has different priorities so I doubt there would be any concensus about a given feature. At best I'd think you might get 20% supporting feature X as "we want this next" and all the other options coming in under that 20% mark. There are also other considerations like "what do we need to integrate with VTT?" so it's not like these decisions get made in a vacuum.
part of my point originally is that they already support "home ruled" characters. all you need to do is customize your character in the old CB and import it.
So the new CB already has the capability to store this type of non-uniform info.
It seems pretty hard to believe that it will take them a whole year (likely more) simply to make that information editable in the online version.
Sounds like some goofball marketing/business driven decision, not a technical one.
If I mess up the quote I apologize ahead of time.
Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to incompetence (or in this case a lack of time).
Look at how long we went without a GUI checkbox for Inherent bonuses. They only have so many programmers and between bug fixes and new features we can only get so much per month. I expect that this particular feature will take a redesign of their front end with substantial code changes which to my way of thinking is a lot harder than adding a single checkbox and a few lines of code. It will also fall victim to their coding priorities. How important is the ability to add extra feats vs. I don't know...custom items, or the old CB character sheet, or displaying the math for all your powers (to hit/damage), or customizing which power cards print out, etc. This is the kind of business decision that the community COULD have an impact on if it were to speak with one voice. We want feature X to be bumped up. The same as what happened with the export feature.
I agree with you to an extent about malice vs. incompetence, however in this case the concept of time is much more a measure of resources utilized vs. days on the calendar. Which makes the actions a choice by management in terms of how many resources they add to the project. Thus while the word malice may not be an appropriate description it does indicated managements concerns, values and prioities.
part of my point originally is that they already support "home ruled" characters. all you need to do is customize your character in the old CB and import it.
So the new CB already has the capability to store this type of non-uniform info.
It seems pretty hard to believe that it will take them a whole year (likely more) simply to make that information editable in the online version.
Sounds like some goofball marketing/business driven decision, not a technical one.
If I mess up the quote I apologize ahead of time.
Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to incompetence (or in this case a lack of time).
Look at how long we went without a GUI checkbox for Inherent bonuses. They only have so many programmers and between bug fixes and new features we can only get so much per month. I expect that this particular feature will take a redesign of their front end with substantial code changes which to my way of thinking is a lot harder than adding a single checkbox and a few lines of code. It will also fall victim to their coding priorities. How important is the ability to add extra feats vs. I don't know...custom items, or the old CB character sheet, or displaying the math for all your powers (to hit/damage), or customizing which power cards print out, etc. This is the kind of business decision that the community COULD have an impact on if it were to speak with one voice. We want feature X to be bumped up. The same as what happened with the export feature.I agree with you to an extent about malice vs. incompetence, however in this case the concept of time is much more a measure of resources utilized vs. days on the calendar. Which makes the actions a choice by management in terms of how many resources they add to the project. Thus while the word malice may not be an appropriate description it does indicated managements concerns, values and prioities.
The only thing I'll add is that your comments assume that management is able to add more resources to the project. As with any project there is a limit of how many people you can assign before they start causing the project to slow down instead of go faster. The old adage "Too many Chef's spoil the broth" is a reference to this.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that they can or can't add additional resources to the project, just that we don't know which makes your comments speculation (unless of course you work for WotC and have some insider knowledge).
There's only so much $$ this project will generate - ergo, only so much resourcing that it's worthwhile to commit to it.
T
Beyond that is also another factor that overrides even the too-many-chefs issue - resource costing. They may simply not have any more staff to assign to that project. Hiring new ones won't help immediately, even assuming there's budget there to be had.
There's only so much $$ this project will generate - ergo, only so much resourcing that it's worthwhile to commit to it.
T
Thomas, you make good points about resources. What I find frustrating is that until relatively recently the products were very good and suddenly, not very good.
I am intrigued by your last statement. The past level of quality used to be worthwhile.
I am curious about what changed within the organization that continueing to meet thier customer's basic expectation stoped being worthwhile.
The only thing I'll add is that your comments assume that management is able to add more resources to the project. As with any project there is a limit of how many people you can assign before they start causing the project to slow down instead of go faster. The old adage "Too many Chef's spoil the broth" is a reference to this.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that they can or can't add additional resources to the project, just that we don't know which makes your comments speculation (unless of course you work for WotC and have some insider knowledge).
Kenjoon I respect your comments and while I am not in agreement, I apreciate the rational way that you express your opinions and thier validity.
Two things stand out about all of this in my opinion.
A. For the most part management in any organization can always add resources, It may mean cutting profits, changing the pricing model, adjusting prioities, not adding resources is a choice.
B. For a long time this organization had the resources to put out a consistantly good product and meet general deadlines. This means the resources and organizational structure existed and something changed. Desire for more profit etc.
I understand an organizations desire and indeed need to make a profit. This organization used to offer me good value for my subscription. I don't know why they changed, I agree with you that since I don't work for the company I don't know why they chose to change.
I do however know (in my opinion) that it was a choice, a choice they continue to make.
From what I've been hearing here about the VTT beta, I'd point to that as having drawn off the better people. Given what's supposed to be there, that's not a trivial project, and given its nature as the "meeting point" for their other online offerings - character, monster builders, maybe other stuff as well - that's where I'd stick my best talent.
That's probably where the change you observe comes from. I look at the timing of the beta on that VTT, and I figure that to have been a project for 2-5 people over an 8-12 month schedule. OCB I'd guess was just one person on an 8-month sched that got hacked down to 6. That means the good folks who had experience got assigned to the new project (VTT) after the CCB was relatively cleaned of bugs, and whoever ended up getting stuck with the maintenance job on CCB is probably the one who ended up working the OCB project (after having had time to become familiar with the code).
I'd also point out that in spite of its bugs and really poor launch, the OCB is not a total loss - arguably, it works, and to some degree works well (full disclosure: I dropped my DDI account when I saw what a mess it was, and have not yet renewed). Some of the blame for its flaws can probably be laid at the feet of the Microsoft rep who sold them on Silverlight, and some of it can be dropped on the designer who spent more time making it pretty than on making it work.
I think assuming that they lost sight of customer expectations is a bit of a stretch...they want a success more than we do, because ultimately their annual review will be dependent on the success of the projects they work on. That the OCB got shoved out the door long before it was ready and the old one got 86'd so fast I would attribute to "Yocam-itis", a.k.a. Dumb Executive Positioning.
Again, take all this with a good measure of doubt, since it's entirely speculative. I guess if I boiled it down, I'd say be critical, but be so with with a hefty dose of fairness. As customers, we don't get to see what's behind the wall there, so speculating bad motives doesn't really accomplish much.
T