That is a metric ton of bug fixes. It looks like they fixed the "import breaks the tool" bug.
EDIT: zomg no more "Choose your role" screen.
So, I'm cornfused.
The new version of OCB launched today is 1.0.192
In case anyone wanted to know that
Um, so we all got a huge broadcast yesterday saying they did NOT update the CB. It was pushed back and would maybe come out this week, but (my words) don't hold your breath.
So, I'm cornfused.
Yup. It took them 1 day to overcome the bug(s) that were still present in the update. So the update that was suppopsed to go out yesterday went out today.
yet another month goes by without being able to make an executioner on teh CB. its really sad,
But not unexpected since it was only compiled in its final writing until the end of December.
The previous version of OCB was 0.1.183.0
The new version of OCB launched today is 1.0.192
In case anyone wanted to know that
... so nominally they're out of beta now? Nice to know.
The previous version of OCB was 0.1.183.0
The new version of OCB launched today is 1.0.192
In case anyone wanted to know that
... so nominally they're out of beta now? Nice to know.
Technically they are not out of beta until every combination of creating a character does not cause it to crash...
Technically they are not out of beta until every combination of creating a character does not cause it to crash...
Congratulations, it must be nice to live in a world where, by your own (unreasonable) expectations, *no* software is ever out of beta. Any non-trivial software will have bugs. Being out of beta means that there are no *known* issues deemed to block deployment. Let me give you a hint. There are still useage combinations that will crash *notepad*. (Possibly the least featureful application in the Windows world.)
The term 'beta' gets thrown around a lot in the non-programmer world. It doesn't mean what you think it means. What you've seen called 'beta' (thanks to the games industry) is actually 'release candidate that can't be fully load and combination tested because if we did that we wouldn't be able to release before 3050'.
Do a quick bit of math on the number of classes, powers, feats, races, etc. and tell me how long you think it would take to test "every combination of creating a character"? Assume it takes 1 second to create each possible combination. Go ahead. The number you get based on those figures will put the release well after you have died of old age, even if you had the entire state of Rhode Island as your QA department. And it's only going to get longer as long as they keep releasing new materials.
Technically they are not out of beta until every combination of creating a character does not cause it to crash...
Congratulations, it must be nice to live in a world where, by your own (unreasonable) expectations, *no* software is ever out of beta. Any non-trivial software will have bugs. Being out of beta means that there are no *known* issues deemed to block deployment. Let me give you a hint. There are still useage combinations that will crash *notepad*. (Possibly the least featureful application in the Windows world.)
Yes software will have bugs. I never said no bugs, I said it won't crash when you do what was intended, and that is to make characters. Since people are still reporting that it crashes on a regular basis, by definition it is still in beta. Of course if you want to get picky its not out of alpha because basic expected features haven't been implemented...
The term 'beta' gets thrown around a lot in the non-programmer world. It doesn't mean what you think it means. What you've seen called 'beta' (thanks to the games industry) is actually 'release candidate that can't be fully load and combination tested because if we did that we wouldn't be able to release before 3050'.
First off I'm an experienced programmer, so I know exactly what the word 'beta' means. Secondly They supposedly did a load test, and didn't have a problem. You can actually do a load test fully by hiring a QA company to do it remotely.
Do a quick bit of math on the number of classes, powers, feats, races, etc. and tell me how long you think it would take to test "every combination of creating a character"? Assume it takes 1 second to create each possible combination. Go ahead. The number you get based on those figures will put the release well after you have died of old age, even if you had the entire state of Rhode Island as your QA department. And it's only going to get longer as long as they keep releasing new materials.
Yes, except that if most of the characters use similar systems to create characters (all of pre-E except psionics) then you don't have to test every single combination. Just those that go outside the paradigm of the system which greatly reduces the amount of testing needed. Not to mention automation programs that will test combinations 24/7 during the entire development cycle. Combine this with the outside QA load testing and 50% of the bugs on release would have been caught. Seriously your lack of knowledge tells me that you may in fact not be a programmer yourself...
*IE
*Safari
*2-3 others of choice
Beyond that it would then be acceptable to not work correctly (or even crash) on non-supported browsers and not be beta.
@lokiare: What I'd like to see from WotC is a "Supported Browsers" list. While technically "any" web browser should work I'd think they should have 4-5 core flavors that they test. At a bare minimum I'd expect core default browsers for supported platforms (windows and mac):
*IE
*Safari
*2-3 others of choice
Beyond that it would then be acceptable to not work correctly (or even crash) on non-supported browsers and not be beta.
Safari? Really? All the Mac users I know use Firefox...
So IE8 and Firefox at a bare minimum (and until mouse scrolling works, I personally wouldn't consider a browser to be supported), probably also Chrome and Safari, and older versions of IE if Silverlight is compatible.
The fact that it still only works as intended in IE8 AFAIK is pretty telling to me.
@lokiare: What I'd like to see from WotC is a "Supported Browsers" list. While technically "any" web browser should work I'd think they should have 4-5 core flavors that they test. At a bare minimum I'd expect core default browsers for supported platforms (windows and mac):
*IE
*Safari
*2-3 others of choice
Beyond that it would then be acceptable to not work correctly (or even crash) on non-supported browsers and not be beta.
That is an excellent idea. That would move it out of beta. If they listed "supported" browsers and it didn't crash regularly on those browsers it would be considered out of beta...
Next update, should be removing it from MS Silverlight and coding it in Flash or Java like all the other grown ups. Then you could have a "Lite" or "Mobile" version for the growing smart phone and tablet device market...again like all the other grown ups.
I never would've purchased a year subscription if I knew everything I'd get in that year would be buggy, incomplete, discontinued, or still in beta...could be worse I guess and be "permanently delayed" like the 3D Visualizer, the Online 3D Game Table, the 3D Dungeon Creation Tools, or pretty much any other selling point 4e originally had backing it. Hopefully I'll at least get to play with a finished piece of software before my D&DI membership ends...I see a basic Dragon Magazine subscription and a lot less disappointment in my future...
[Snip the prior stuff demonstrating lack of knowledge re. software]
Seriously your lack of knowledge tells me that you may in fact not be a programmer yourself...
Faelan's right. Beta is determined by the publisher, not the users.
That it may not be acceptable to you - as it is not to me - is not a determining factor in assigning it "beta" status. "Beta" is an arbitrary designation which roughly translates to "Okay, it looks good enough that we can put it in front of a [pre-determined] set of users for feedback."
That the pre-determined set is the entire community, and that they want to charge $$ for it, is their call, not yours or mine.
As well, this topic is rather esoteric to begin with, as no official designation has taken it to or from any status other than its original. That they revved the primary version counter doesn't have any real impact on whether it is "beta" or not, unless they say it does.
T
[Snip the prior stuff demonstrating lack of knowledge re. software]
Seriously your lack of knowledge tells me that you may in fact not be a programmer yourself...
Faelan's right. Beta is determined by the publisher, not the users.
That it may not be acceptable to you - as it is not to me - is not a determining factor in assigning it "beta" status. "Beta" is an arbitrary designation which roughly translates to "Okay, it looks good enough that we can put it in front of a [pre-determined] set of users for feedback."
That the pre-determined set is the entire community, and that they want to charge $$ for it, is their call, not yours or mine.
As well, this topic is rather esoteric to begin with, as no official designation has taken it to or from any status other than its original. That they revved the primary version counter doesn't have any real impact on whether it is "beta" or not, unless they say it does.
T
I like how you insult me in my own quote...very clever...
No, beta is determined by a definition of which one can be found on www.wikipedia.org. Many more definitions can be found in many other places. They generally equate to "A product that does not reliably crash and is feature complete". This also shows that you don't know what a beta is.
I agree with your last paragraph. They definitely didn't change its official designation by putting a "1" on the version number. As it is now, it may meet the definition of "Beta" with all the new fixes, but from what I've seen it does not. Since it still can't be used to create characters on a reliable basis. See bug thread for references...
They can call it what they want as the old saying goes... "A rose by any other name still smells as sweet." Or in WotC case "A trash can by any other name (recycle bin, Character Builder) still smells"
I like how you insult me in my own quote...very clever...
It seemed apt. Apologies for the snark.
Wikipedia doesn't define beta, it simply presents what a majority think beta means. However, its definition will suffice for this conversation. The software was deemed close enough to feature-complete to get it in front of users for acceptance testing. To continue using the Wik definition, this is a perpetual beta.
However, the decision of charge for access and state-of-readiness remains in the copyright owner's sole purview. It's not our choice (nor our definition). We are fortunate enough to at least have a voice to make it known whether some of the community find its state acceptable or not. Were this a Microsoft product we'd get it and that'd pretty much be it until the next version.
Using your definition, of performing its job reliably - I would have to take issue with that, simply because neither you nor I have the full view from the control board, as it were. From what I can see, the majority of users are using the software successfully. It makes PCs for them, and I assume reliably (though I had a friend in my group who just vented his frustration at the product, and he'd been passive about it prior).
That doesn't make the product a success by itself, because a large minority of those users (myself included) find it unacceptable and are unwilling to pay for it. I believe that is recognized inside the walls of the company, which would explain why the majority of the changes in the last rev were fixes (and as a nod to the product manager: my thanks for getting rid of the "choose your role" at start).
This is "software as a service" - though not in the magna-budget form you'd get from Peoplesoft or Oracle, etc. The software will continue to evolve and change in ways that its owners feel make it better. They did the same for the rules of the game. At this rate, I suspect I'll renew my subscription in another rev or two.
To put it more basely, the first public release was a clogged toilet. They've cleaned out most of the foul, but there's still some clinging to the sides. I wouldn't sit on it right now, but others might not be checking it in quite as much detail as I am .
T
Once *I* consider this software ready-for-primetime (i.e., out of what *I* consider public beta testing), I'll resub. Because I don't pay for software that appears to still be in beta.
I don't know that the "beta" designation is all that useful out of context though. If the software is buggy and you feel it's not worth the price then don't pay for it and complain about the bugs (if you must, *sigh*). Calling it "Beta" doesn't really do anything meaningful.
I don't know that the "beta" designation is all that useful out of context though. If the software is buggy and you feel it's not worth the price then don't pay for it and complain about the bugs (if you must, *sigh*). Calling it "Beta" doesn't really do anything meaningful.
I think many are trying to associate 'beta' with incomplete. What they don't seem to understand is that no software application is ever complete, just 'good enough for release'.
I don't know that the "beta" designation is all that useful out of context though. If the software is buggy and you feel it's not worth the price then don't pay for it and complain about the bugs (if you must, *sigh*). Calling it "Beta" doesn't really do anything meaningful.
I think many are trying to associate 'beta' with incomplete. What they don't seem to understand is that no software application is ever complete, just 'good enough for release'.
Agree. Beta comes before release to the customer. While I will admit that what we got in November was more like Alpha with all the reported crashes and bugs, I have to say that the program is now in release. Anything that you don't like about it at this point just means that it is missing features or has bugs. If you can cause it to crash consistently then it still might be beta depending on your combination of browser and hardware, but this gets back to what I said in another thread about WotC making a statement about "supported platforms" and having a list of browsers that have been tested.
No, I'm not saying that complaints are not valid....just that this is a terminology issue and that calling it "beta" at this point is an incorrect use of the word.
Honestly, with all the problems the CB has at this point in time, as well as how bad it was at launch, I doubt that WotC even gave the app any real testing phase at all. It feels that they just put it together and tossed it up on the website.
Have fun with that!
EDIT: Welp, nothing to see here, boys. Move along.
I love how you frequently respond to almost everyone on these boards like you're their parent, preaching your opinions as facts, and acting like you're somehow more civilized (despite ragging on a guy in a separate post who has English as a second language for being "impolite and stupid," effectively being so yourself). Perhaps you should get down off your high horse and just ignore those posts you don't like. There's a tool on this message board that allows you to do this, and I'd highly recommend it. Going forward, I'm blocking your apologist nonsense, so sorry if I fail to respond to any future sermon you may post.
Got it. Just like in politics. Don't bother to defend your position, just attack the integrity of the speaker.
Choice:
A) Say bad things about WotC. Make up any "facts" you want because if anyone tries to call you out you can just say they are an mouthpiece, fanboy, or apologist.
B) Call out the naysayers when they make up "facts". Get called a mouthpiece, fanboy, or apologist.
If you're calling someone names then you have already lost the fight.
Crappy software is crappy software no matter what words you use to describe it...and though "Beta" is a four letter word I tend to use other "violation of forum terms and agreements" style four letter words to describe the character builder to others.
If you don't like it don't buy it
If you don't like it don't buy it
I bought the old character builder, I was forced into this new garbage...unfortunately I got a year subscription to DDI so maybe I could work out a refund deal with them, or I could just voice my extremely disappointed opinion as a paying customer of a sub-par product. A product which was not mentioned to be replacing the product I initially had until long after I had a subscription to DDI.
Until it is at least on par with the old character builder, you will continue to see this customer complaining about a product that alienates the fan base in it's attempt to appeal to new players. The Character Builder is at best C list software trying to push an A list price, and when it comes time for renewal of my subscription if that fact hasn't changed the choice has already been made for me.
BTW, I did vote with my wallet. I just renewed my subscription. I'm telling them to use my money to improve what they have. I believe that by denying them my money is telling them to stop altogether. My money is paying the developers salaries. I'd rather have them keep working to improve what they have instead of not working at all.
If you don't like it don't buy it
I bought the old character builder, I was forced into this new garbage...
Nobody forced anyone into anything. WotC has been very free and easy with cancellations/refunds for extended memberships and whatever time you have remaining. Stop being unhappy now. Follow DrNick's advice.
It's to do both.
For those who are displeased with the character builder, the most effective course of action, and the one most likely to motivate change, is not to cancel ones subscription. And it's not to complain vociferously.
It's to do both.
Meh, they already know. Complaining now won't really accomplish anything (especially nonconstructive complaints like "the OCB sucks"). And canceling will just mean they have less money to fix it with.
Absolutely true. Where we disagree is that I believe they need to continue to be told, in order to maintain a sense of urgency.
Personally I am keeping my subscription because I enjoy the magazine articles. But I will be the first to say that the character builder fails the most important benchmark, which is not a technical one.
"Does this product make my job as a DM, and/or my players job as players, easier?"
No. It does not. My players have hit a level up point and we are actually suspending our weekly game until the online builder is workable, because every single player in my game is unable to a) create a character with custom elements (which they all have) or b) print properly.
To me, that is the most telling indicator of the unsatisfactory state of the product. That my group of adult, dedicated D&D players, after due consideration, have concluded that the amount of effort required just to make up to date character sheets exceeds the potential enjoyment of the game.
And THAT is why I want them to fix the CB and will continue to petition vocally for them to do so.
I don't want my money back; I want my game back.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Or whatevs. You made your agenda pretty clear so these may not "work" for you personally.
Also, i wouldn't call it "vociferous", as you are being more reasonable then loud.
I don't like having a four page character sheet though.
Used the CB for the first time to make an Essentials character for D&D Encounters. I really liked it and found it easy to navgate. I don't like having a four page character sheet though.
With the addition of the 3 new cards on the printout you really only need the sheet with the cards for most things.