I dunno why people defend being locked to 3 campaigns so vehemently. I'm not looking to change anything for the people that won't use it, or the people that have 12-player games. I'm not looking to rip anyone off. I'm not looking to not continue to spend money on dndbeyond, I've already dumped $250 on this app and I'll probably end up spending even more. What I'm looking for is to be able to continue to do with the app what I've always done with my books, run lots of campaigns and short one shots all over the course of the same month, without having to continue doing the activate/deactivate dance or play player tetris and try to fit multiple groups into a single campaign slot.
The only solutions right now are to make players buy books or to make a second account of my own and buy them myself. Those are both pretty silly workarounds. At the very very very least, I should be able to buy a second copy of a book on my own account to allow it to be shared 3 more times, not have to off-load it onto a separate account. I'd still have to buy everything twice as so many of the people here seem to think is right way this should be handled, but then I'd at least get to keep the license on my actual account. But I still think that is pretty ridiculous. The much better solution for everyone involved is to either allow campaign slots be unlocked for a flat fee, or to offer higher level subscription tiers with more campaign slots. People who have more than 3 campaign get what they want for a reasonable cost that won't double the amount they have to pay just for the convenience of being able to run another campaign, and everyone here arguing that spending $250 to run 4 campaigns isn't enough money in Curse's pockets gets what they want, as I'll be spending more money. I'm not sure why that's something people are against. Everyone wins and we get to play more D&D!
Please tell me, before digital tools how exactly did you share 1 PHB with multiple people in multiple campaigns at the same time in different places without having them buy books themselves, or buying 2nd, 3rd, etc. copies yourself and sharing them? I don't really expect an answer because you've already been asked this a few times. it is not the same.
You're asking a ridiculous question, man. I can't be in two different places at the same time to DM different games. That's not the issue at all. These are campaigns that are run simultaneously in the sense that in a given week 4 of them might have a play day.
You're asking a ridiculous question, man. I can't be in two different places at the same time to DM different games. That's not the issue at all. These are campaigns that are run simultaneously in the sense that in a given week 4 of them might have a play day.
It's not ridiculous. If they are in your DNDBeyond campaign, they have all the access all of the time. If they are in your campaign using only physical books, they only have access when they are there with your book.
RogueBurger, albeit a bit harshly maybe, raised a fair point, in my opinion, so let's try and keep the conversation civil and not go trying to put on fires, shall we? How they would share the books it's beyond the point, what they are asking is to have a way to get a bit more liberty as a DM, given the great possibilities of DDB they would like to enjoy in all their games.
lokibryce expanded on my previous idea of just having player/character slots to assign to divide up in how many campaigns we see fit/need by proposing to have the possibility of adding more slots for an increased cost of the monthly Master Tier, and I think we are on the right track to make an honest and well structured proposal/suggestion to Curse on how they could improve on the current service. Let's try to continue on this line and fine-tune the idea, or come up with a better one, if anyone has a mind for it :)
I think that yes, the 36 characters maybe should really be 36 accounts, and not 3x12 campaign slots -- this would allow more flexibility and make more sense.
I think purchasing additional slots is probably a bad idea. 37 is probably close to the point where the ROI is almost not worth it for the company (yourself and 36 other people getting all of the products after purchasing it one time, at 1/2 the MSRP of physical product with a $55/year subscription is already EXTREMELY generous). Buying more slots at $1/user/month or whatever other proposed prices seems insane to me and would probably be one of the quickest ways of making a business fail.
Yes people share books, but if you want to look at it on your own time, you have to go out and buy it. With this digital toolset, you can use someone else's purchase whenever you want, from wherever you want. That's fantastic, but just think, they are already letting 37 people for the price of 1 +about $60/year have full access all of the time for the price of 1 of the digital toolset, which is MUCH cheaper than the MSRP of the physical books, and you are asking for more.
You're asking a ridiculous question, man. I can't be in two different places at the same time to DM different games. That's not the issue at all. These are campaigns that are run simultaneously in the sense that in a given week 4 of them might have a play day.
It's not ridiculous. If they are in your DNDBeyond campaign, they have all the access all of the time. If they are in your campaign using only physical books, they only have access when they are there with your book.
I'm not saying dndbeyond and digital tools as a whole don't provide awesome things to bring roleplaying games to the next level. I've been a proponent of digital tools for the longest time for these very reasons. I'm in no way talking about those things though. My complaint is regarding an area where these digital tools are falling short of physical books, and it's something that doesn't have to be that way. There are a bunch of really easy and fair ways to make the platform not have these limitations. But people are apparently against making the dndbeyond platform better in this regard. It makes little sense to me.
I LOVE that we finally have some half-way competent digital tools. I want to continue to use them. I just want them to be the best they can be, and right now, as someone who can often have 4-5 on-going games, they are not the best they can be. So I'm looking for them to offer some better solutions for me and other people in my situation.
I think that yes, the 36 characters maybe should really be 36 accounts, and not 3x12 campaign slots -- this would allow more flexibility and make more sense.
I think purchasing additional slots is probably a bad idea. 37 is probably close to the point where the ROI is almost not worth it for the company (yourself and 36 other people getting all of the products after purchasing it one time, at 1/2 the MSRP of physical product with a $55/year subscription is already EXTREMELY generous). Buying more slots at $1/user/month or whatever other proposed prices seems insane to me and would probably be one of the quickest ways of making a business fail.
Yes people share books, but if you want to look at it on your own time, you have to go out and buy it. With this digital toolset, you can use someone else's purchase whenever you want, from wherever you want. That's fantastic, but just think, they are already letting 37 people for the price of 1 +about $60/year have full access all of the time for the price of 1 of the digital toolset, which is MUCH cheaper than the MSRP of the physical books, and you are asking for more.
He is (and I certainly am not) asking for more, he's simply asking for things to be a bit more flexible.
I agree that the 36 slots for characters/accounts is really generous, but as lokibryce was saying, there might be people with multiple, high-number campaigns, and therefore could use even more slots. Now, there would be possibly other ways to solve this issue, simplest one would be to have someone else pitch-in for the needed manuals and that person uses his/her own 36 slots to share with everyone else needed, but also giving the chance for the same account to buy more slots does not seem such a outlandish idea (the 1$/month might be too little, but I am not en economics graduate so I do not really have a say in this, let's just say the the thought of additional paid slots it's not to be discarded per-se, imho).
In the end we all want to make DDB successful, and we want to see it become better and better, and I believe (I might be wrong) this kind of discussion is healthy for the service.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I've been reading this thread for a while, and am going to step in now.
The three campaigns X twelve users each was determined from statistical analysis of all the campaigns we saw in-use during the beta period. These settings provide coverage to the third standard deviation (>99%) for number of campaigns and number of characters in a campaign. However, they are always subject to being modified as we see the community grow and the data shift.
Originally, we did have the system designed to grant the DM a number of "sharing slots", and it was ONLY from the DM, meaning she would have to carry the Master Tier subscription. However, we changed that design, not long before launch, so that ANY player in the campaign with the Master Tier sub can enable content sharing for the campaign, and that triggers sharing of ALL purchased content from ALL players in the campaign. This, to us, seemed much more beneficial, to the community as a whole, than the original scenario.
Now, all that being said, we have discussed ideas on how to provide for ways to increase the limits. I can't discuss what those may be, as they are just ideas atm, or any timeline for any kind of implementation, but we do listen to feedback, and it does help drive our decisions.
Yeah, I'd never even use close to 36 slots. The issue currently for me is the arbitrary ratio they are using of players to campaigns. Don't get me wrong, it's great that giant 8-12 player games are able to use the app, and I don't want to take away that functionality at all from them. But that ratio is pretty useless to me, because my game size is 4-7 players usually. So even maxed out with 5 on-going games (which is the most I'd probably ever have going at once) and 7 players each, I'm only just hitting 35 total players, and I don't think that will ever happen. Most of my games won't have 7 people in them and I only get a 5th on-going game going every once in a while. So for me it's an either or. Either they make the limitation per slot instead of per campaign, which solves my issue completely. Or they keep it they way it is (3x12) and let us add additional campaign slots for a higher tier subscription. I definitely wouldn't need both, and I don't think anyone else would, but I'm happy to be corrected.
I've been reading this thread for a while, and am going to step in now.
The three campaigns X twelve users each was determined from statistical analysis of all the campaigns we saw in-use during the beta period. These settings provide coverage to the third standard deviation (>99%) for number of campaigns and number of characters in a campaign. However, they are always subject to being modified as we see the community grow and the data shift.
Originally, we did have the system designed to grant the DM a number of "sharing slots", and it was ONLY from the DM, meaning she would have to carry the Master Tier subscription. However, we changed that design, not long before launch, so that ANY player in the campaign with the Master Tier sub can enable content sharing for the campaign, and that triggers sharing of ALL purchased content from ALL players in the campaign. This, to us, seemed much more beneficial, to the community as a whole, than the original scenario.
Now, all that being said, we have discussed ideas on how to provide for ways to increase the limits. I can't discuss what those may be, as they are just ideas atm, or any timeline for any kind of implementation, but we do listen to feedback, and it does help drive our decisions.
Thank you for your reply and explanation, HartlessD20.
Thank you especially for shedding light on how the 3x12 ration has been decided. I see how the character slot version could clash with your idea of allowing everyone to share their content. Would an account slot version instead, as proposed by Mehetmet, make things easier? or it would not change much at all?
Would there be a way, maybe in the next dev livestream with BadEye, to get a look at the current campaign size/use against who owns the material in a campaign? It might just be me being very old-fashioned, but in my experience, it is usually the master owning most of the manuals needed, and sometimes the players themselves pitching-in for the purchase, so it would be interesting (at least for me) to see how the ownership is spread here on DDB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I've been reading this thread for a while, and am going to step in now.
The three campaigns X twelve users each was determined from statistical analysis of all the campaigns we saw in-use during the beta period. These settings provide coverage to the third standard deviation (>99%) for number of campaigns and number of characters in a campaign. However, they are always subject to being modified as we see the community grow and the data shift.
Hmm, seems kinda weird to base that decision on what campaigns looked like in the beta where we only had the SRD and things weren't fully built out yet. I know I personally only had one campaign created for that and didn't even end up using it because a lot of functionality was still missing / buggy, and no game I've ever run has been pure SRD. It's only now after launch that I've had time to slowly migrate pen and paper games into dndbeyond and feel much more comfortable fully relying on the app for all my games.
I hope you take into account the people who would never show up in the stats. The people who see that there is a limitation in place, and so continue to run pen and paper games. I've still got one pen and paper game that I can't migrate due to no homebrew feats/races, but even once those are in the app, given that I've already surpassed the 3 campaign limit, I will still keep that pen and paper game as it is.
I've been reading this thread for a while, and am going to step in now.
The three campaigns X twelve users each was determined from statistical analysis of all the campaigns we saw in-use during the beta period. These settings provide coverage to the third standard deviation (>99%) for number of campaigns and number of characters in a campaign. However, they are always subject to being modified as we see the community grow and the data shift.
Hmm, seems kinda weird to base that decision on what campaigns looked like in the beta where we only had the SRD and things weren't fully built out yet. I know I personally only had one campaign created for that and didn't even end up using it because a lot of functionality was still missing / buggy, and no game I've ever run has been pure SRD. It's only now after launch that I've had time to slowly migrate pen and paper games into dndbeyond and feel much more comfortable fully relying on the app for all my games.
I hope you take into account the people who would never show up in the stats. The people who see that there is a limitation in place, and so continue to run pen and paper games. I've still got one pen and paper game that I can't migrate due to no homebrew feats/races, but even once those are in the app, given that I've already surpassed the 3 campaign limit, I will still keep that pen and paper game as it is.
They based it on the only data available to them at the time. And it represented a change in structure directly based on user feedback.
As Hartless said, and as Curse has consistently shown, their plans are ever shifting based on the wants and needs of the people who purchase their content.
Whatever reason they got from the stats collected in the beta period i am sure they where going for the best for everybody.
The max. players i have seen in a working group was 7 so the limit for 12 is way to high for me, but i am not seeing that as a problem.
I am only concern if there are going to be a way to buy more slots/campaigns with content sharing. Because I am happy to pay for services, but my players are not :)
I would love to pay for content sharing in 2-3 campaigns more... i would not use more campaigns anyway.
I've been reading this thread for a while, and am going to step in now.
The three campaigns X twelve users each was determined from statistical analysis of all the campaigns we saw in-use during the beta period. These settings provide coverage to the third standard deviation (>99%) for number of campaigns and number of characters in a campaign. However, they are always subject to being modified as we see the community grow and the data shift.
Hmm, seems kinda weird to base that decision on what campaigns looked like in the beta where we only had the SRD and things weren't fully built out yet. I know I personally only had one campaign created for that and didn't even end up using it because a lot of functionality was still missing / buggy, and no game I've ever run has been pure SRD. It's only now after launch that I've had time to slowly migrate pen and paper games into dndbeyond and feel much more comfortable fully relying on the app for all my games.
I hope you take into account the people who would never show up in the stats. The people who see that there is a limitation in place, and so continue to run pen and paper games. I've still got one pen and paper game that I can't migrate due to no homebrew feats/races, but even once those are in the app, given that I've already surpassed the 3 campaign limit, I will still keep that pen and paper game as it is.
They based it on the only data available to them at the time. And it represented a change in structure directly based on user feedback.
As Hartless said, and as Curse has consistently shown, their plans are ever shifting based on the wants and needs of the people who purchase their content.
True, but whenever running hardcore statistical analysis like they are apparently doing, it's always super important to understand where the data is coming from in the first place and what limitations and biases might be in place. Much like you couldn't look at the data right now and conclude that there is any statistical significance to not seeing any accounts that are sharing 4 campaigns, because you can't do that in the current system, similarly if there are other factors that might make the data err one way or the other, it's important to fully understand them before drawing any conclusions. In this case, if the limit of 3 campaigns was simply due to the statistical fact no one was running more than 3 campaigns in the beta with the SRD ruleset, then I would say that data is pretty flawed and not representative of any real statistics about what people actually would do once the app actually had content. I don't know of a single person who runs more than one SRD game at a time. I'm sure they're out there, but the vast majority of people who run multiple games are people who actually own the books.
I'm sure they will change and adapt. I've never said otherwise, and in fact that's exactly why this thread exists. I just find it surprising to see someone using hard statistics in such a manner.
I've been reading this thread for a while, and am going to step in now.
The three campaigns X twelve users each was determined from statistical analysis of all the campaigns we saw in-use during the beta period. These settings provide coverage to the third standard deviation (>99%) for number of campaigns and number of characters in a campaign. However, they are always subject to being modified as we see the community grow and the data shift.
Hmm, seems kinda weird to base that decision on what campaigns looked like in the beta where we only had the SRD and things weren't fully built out yet. I know I personally only had one campaign created for that and didn't even end up using it because a lot of functionality was still missing / buggy, and no game I've ever run has been pure SRD. It's only now after launch that I've had time to slowly migrate pen and paper games into dndbeyond and feel much more comfortable fully relying on the app for all my games.
I hope you take into account the people who would never show up in the stats. The people who see that there is a limitation in place, and so continue to run pen and paper games. I've still got one pen and paper game that I can't migrate due to no homebrew feats/races, but even once those are in the app, given that I've already surpassed the 3 campaign limit, I will still keep that pen and paper game as it is.
They based it on the only data available to them at the time. And it represented a change in structure directly based on user feedback.
As Hartless said, and as Curse has consistently shown, their plans are ever shifting based on the wants and needs of the people who purchase their content.
True, but whenever running hardcore statistical analysis like they are apparently doing, it's always super important to understand where the data is coming from in the first place and what limitations and biases might be in place. Much like you couldn't look at the data right now and conclude that there is any statistical significance to not seeing any accounts that are sharing 4 campaigns, because you can't do that in the current system, similarly if there are other factors that might make the data err one way or the other, it's important to fully understand them before drawing any conclusions. In this case, if the limit of 3 campaigns was simply due to the statistical fact no one was running more than 3 campaigns in the beta with the SRD ruleset, then I would say that data is pretty flawed and not representative of any real statistics about what people actually would do once the app actually had content. I don't know of a single person who runs more than one SRD game at a time. I'm sure they're out there, but the vast majority of people who run multiple games are people who actually own the books.
I'm sure they will change and adapt. I've never said otherwise, and in fact that's exactly why this thread exists. I just find it surprising to see someone using hard statistics in such a manner.
The options were either used hard, albeit biased, statistics or guess what the optimal sharing structure would be. I understand that to an outsider it seems obvious that just going with a set number of slots makes the most sense. But as users we have the benefit of answering to no one but ourselves. When Curse met (no doubt in an emergency meeting to discuss user backlash to their pricing announcement) they had everyone to answer to on both sides of the coin.
They made the choice that made sense to them and seemed to have pleased most people. Now they are hearing from the outliers and attempting to readjust in real time.
If it was a simple solution which would cause zero backlash on Curse they probably would have made the change already.
Eh, having been part of many a software and feature rollout, a simple standard deviation has never once been what's determined a feature set. That sounds like something we'd put into a powerpoint presentation to a non-technical higher up just to appease them with some fancy jargon, but there's a lot more that goes into picking feature sets. I'm sure that the same is true in this case, and there were a lot of factors that went into it, but I can only judge what is presented here in this thread, and pulling out something like "third standard deviation" with no nod to context the data was compiled from is a bit silly.
I'm happy they are looking into it and hoping to have more options. But I do hope they know they'll never put together the best feature set if they run naive (the data, not the people) statistical analyses.
Eh, having been part of many a software and feature rollout, a simple standard deviation has never once been what's determined a feature set. That sounds like something we'd put into a powerpoint presentation to a non-technical higher up just to appease them with some fancy jargon, but there's a lot more that goes into picking feature sets. I'm sure that the same is true in this case, and there were a lot of factors that went into it, but I can only judge what is presented here in this thread, and pulling out something like "third standard deviation" with no nod to context the data was compiled from is a bit silly.
I'm happy they are looking into it and hoping to have more options. But I do hope they know they'll never put together the best feature set if they run naive (the data, not the people) statistical analyses.
It is definitely interesting to see different perspectives on how it should be done. What company do you work for?
As I hinted at I assume they determined how best to offer value to customers while still protecting their bottom line in order to show their bosses bosses that this was and will continuie to be a worthwhile venture.
And I certainly don't mean that in a mean spirited way, I work for a huge global infrastructure firm, I understand that many people who make the decisions need to be shown a good bottom line, plain and simple.
Eh, having been part of many a software and feature rollout, a simple standard deviation has never once been what's determined a feature set. That sounds like something we'd put into a powerpoint presentation to a non-technical higher up just to appease them with some fancy jargon, but there's a lot more that goes into picking feature sets. I'm sure that the same is true in this case, and there were a lot of factors that went into it, but I can only judge what is presented here in this thread, and pulling out something like "third standard deviation" with no nod to context the data was compiled from is a bit silly.
I'm happy they are looking into it and hoping to have more options. But I do hope they know they'll never put together the best feature set if they run naive (the data, not the people) statistical analyses.
No, the statistics were not the only determining factor. There was due diligence on evaluating the bias of the data and inclusions of qualitative factors as well. However, I didn't feel it necessary to outline our entire decision algorithm, as I'm never going to discuss the entirety of our processes. The point of the comment was that these were not "arbitrary" numbers.
I appreciate your feedback for your particular need for adjustments. The more people request changes, the better. However, I feel that this particular discussion has run it's course.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
You're asking a ridiculous question, man. I can't be in two different places at the same time to DM different games. That's not the issue at all. These are campaigns that are run simultaneously in the sense that in a given week 4 of them might have a play day.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
RogueBurger, albeit a bit harshly maybe, raised a fair point, in my opinion, so let's try and keep the conversation civil and not go trying to put on fires, shall we?
How they would share the books it's beyond the point, what they are asking is to have a way to get a bit more liberty as a DM, given the great possibilities of DDB they would like to enjoy in all their games.
lokibryce expanded on my previous idea of just having player/character slots to assign to divide up in how many campaigns we see fit/need by proposing to have the possibility of adding more slots for an increased cost of the monthly Master Tier, and I think we are on the right track to make an honest and well structured proposal/suggestion to Curse on how they could improve on the current service.
Let's try to continue on this line and fine-tune the idea, or come up with a better one, if anyone has a mind for it :)
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I think that yes, the 36 characters maybe should really be 36 accounts, and not 3x12 campaign slots -- this would allow more flexibility and make more sense.
I think purchasing additional slots is probably a bad idea. 37 is probably close to the point where the ROI is almost not worth it for the company (yourself and 36 other people getting all of the products after purchasing it one time, at 1/2 the MSRP of physical product with a $55/year subscription is already EXTREMELY generous). Buying more slots at $1/user/month or whatever other proposed prices seems insane to me and would probably be one of the quickest ways of making a business fail.
Yes people share books, but if you want to look at it on your own time, you have to go out and buy it. With this digital toolset, you can use someone else's purchase whenever you want, from wherever you want. That's fantastic, but just think, they are already letting 37 people for the price of 1 +about $60/year have full access all of the time for the price of 1 of the digital toolset, which is MUCH cheaper than the MSRP of the physical books, and you are asking for more.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
Now, there would be possibly other ways to solve this issue, simplest one would be to have someone else pitch-in for the needed manuals and that person uses his/her own 36 slots to share with everyone else needed, but also giving the chance for the same account to buy more slots does not seem such a outlandish idea (the 1$/month might be too little, but I am not en economics graduate so I do not really have a say in this, let's just say the the thought of additional paid slots it's not to be discarded per-se, imho).
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I've been reading this thread for a while, and am going to step in now.
The three campaigns X twelve users each was determined from statistical analysis of all the campaigns we saw in-use during the beta period. These settings provide coverage to the third standard deviation (>99%) for number of campaigns and number of characters in a campaign. However, they are always subject to being modified as we see the community grow and the data shift.
Originally, we did have the system designed to grant the DM a number of "sharing slots", and it was ONLY from the DM, meaning she would have to carry the Master Tier subscription. However, we changed that design, not long before launch, so that ANY player in the campaign with the Master Tier sub can enable content sharing for the campaign, and that triggers sharing of ALL purchased content from ALL players in the campaign. This, to us, seemed much more beneficial, to the community as a whole, than the original scenario.
Now, all that being said, we have discussed ideas on how to provide for ways to increase the limits. I can't discuss what those may be, as they are just ideas atm, or any timeline for any kind of implementation, but we do listen to feedback, and it does help drive our decisions.
I am the Inquisitor Imperitus. I am judge, jury, and executioner. Draw your last breath now, as I send you to the Nine Hells.
Yeah, I'd never even use close to 36 slots. The issue currently for me is the arbitrary ratio they are using of players to campaigns. Don't get me wrong, it's great that giant 8-12 player games are able to use the app, and I don't want to take away that functionality at all from them. But that ratio is pretty useless to me, because my game size is 4-7 players usually. So even maxed out with 5 on-going games (which is the most I'd probably ever have going at once) and 7 players each, I'm only just hitting 35 total players, and I don't think that will ever happen. Most of my games won't have 7 people in them and I only get a 5th on-going game going every once in a while. So for me it's an either or. Either they make the limitation per slot instead of per campaign, which solves my issue completely. Or they keep it they way it is (3x12) and let us add additional campaign slots for a higher tier subscription. I definitely wouldn't need both, and I don't think anyone else would, but I'm happy to be corrected.
It might just be me being very old-fashioned, but in my experience, it is usually the master owning most of the manuals needed, and sometimes the players themselves pitching-in for the purchase, so it would be interesting (at least for me) to see how the ownership is spread here on DDB.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I hope you take into account the people who would never show up in the stats. The people who see that there is a limitation in place, and so continue to run pen and paper games. I've still got one pen and paper game that I can't migrate due to no homebrew feats/races, but even once those are in the app, given that I've already surpassed the 3 campaign limit, I will still keep that pen and paper game as it is.
Whatever reason they got from the stats collected in the beta period i am sure they where going for the best for everybody.
The max. players i have seen in a working group was 7 so the limit for 12 is way to high for me, but i am not seeing that as a problem.
I am only concern if there are going to be a way to buy more slots/campaigns with content sharing. Because I am happy to pay for services, but my players are not :)
I would love to pay for content sharing in 2-3 campaigns more... i would not use more campaigns anyway.
I'm sure they will change and adapt. I've never said otherwise, and in fact that's exactly why this thread exists. I just find it surprising to see someone using hard statistics in such a manner.
Eh, having been part of many a software and feature rollout, a simple standard deviation has never once been what's determined a feature set. That sounds like something we'd put into a powerpoint presentation to a non-technical higher up just to appease them with some fancy jargon, but there's a lot more that goes into picking feature sets. I'm sure that the same is true in this case, and there were a lot of factors that went into it, but I can only judge what is presented here in this thread, and pulling out something like "third standard deviation" with no nod to context the data was compiled from is a bit silly.
I'm happy they are looking into it and hoping to have more options. But I do hope they know they'll never put together the best feature set if they run naive (the data, not the people) statistical analyses.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I am the Inquisitor Imperitus. I am judge, jury, and executioner. Draw your last breath now, as I send you to the Nine Hells.