Don't limit players to 12 in shared campaigns. Instead, since we can have 5 shared campaigns, just let us have a total of 60 shared players and unlimited shared campaigns. All this current limit is doing is forcing me to create generic campaigns like "Chev's Campaign Share 1" and fill it up to the 12 max since one campaign might have 3 or 4 players and another might have 10. If we could just share content with 60 players total (12 * 5) then I could actually use campaigns as they are intended and have a 1:1 relationship with the actual campaign.
Currently I'm using only three campaigns because as far as I know this 5 campaign bonus was temporary and just for the pandemic. Which is cool but I don't want to have to deal with it when it switches back. So essentially I just have three generic campaigns that I stick people in and I have them append their character name with a campaign abbreviation. I think this could be better while still maintaining content sharing limits.
It would probably need a new sharing interface where I can share content with specific users and manage that list of users, but honestly that would be way more intuitive than it is currently. For example, if one player has two characters in my campaign is that taking up 1 or 2 slots? If I add NPC characters to my campaign do those take up sharing slots or is the system smart enough to only take up sharing slots when players add characters to my campaigns? Etc. etc. there are just a few question marks that aren't super obvious at first. I'm sure I could mess around and figure it out but it seems like a more intuitive content sharing management system would be a win either way :)
Thanks for your consideration! Love this service <3
so what your feedback is.... I use the campaign system wrong. Look yeah they allow 3 campaigns of up to 12 people, but that is because they want the campaign system used in the way it is implemented. What you are asking for is 60 people on one subscription. Which is frankly counter productive to a business.
so what your feedback is.... I use the campaign system wrong. Look yeah they allow 3 campaigns of up to 12 people, but that is because they want the campaign system used in the way it is implemented. What you are asking for is 60 people on one subscription. Which is frankly counter productive to a business.
To be fair, he has 5 campaigns (which was enabled during Covid quarantine, and they have not deleted existing campaigns to bring everyone back down to 3). With 12 in each of his campaigns, that does add up to 60 people. He's simply asking for a way to divide those people up in different proportions so that one campaign with only 5 people isn't wasted while another campaign with 14 people can't hold them all. I dunno why he'd have a campaign with that many people, but he's just asking for less strict divisions of campaigns... he's asking for a total player limit shared among campaigns rather than a per-campaign player limit.
so what your feedback is.... I use the campaign system wrong. Look yeah they allow 3 campaigns of up to 12 people, but that is because they want the campaign system used in the way it is implemented. What you are asking for is 60 people on one subscription. Which is frankly counter productive to a business.
To be fair, he has 5 campaigns (which was enabled during Covid quarantine, and they have not deleted existing campaigns to bring everyone back down to 3). With 12 in each of his campaigns, that does add up to 60 people. He's simply asking for a way to divide those people up in different proportions so that one campaign with only 5 people isn't wasted while another campaign with 14 people can't hold them all. I dunno why he'd have a campaign with that many people, but he's just asking for less strict divisions of campaigns... he's asking for a total player limit shared among campaigns rather than a per-campaign player limit.
Exactly. I don't know why that was so confusing. I even put the math my post. If those two extra campaigns ever fall back off it would be the equivalent of that 60 people dropping to 36. I'm not asking them to change the amount of sharing allowed. I'm just asking to be able to distribute that pool of people differently across campaigns.
"so what your feedback is.... I use the campaign system wrong."
Look up Desire Paths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path Are the people walking wrong? Or did the path builders just fail to anticipate convenience? Most university campuses pave desire paths because fighting with your end users is the opposite way to make them happy. So when I use the campaign system in whatever way is currently easiest and makes the most sense to me and then I come here to provide feedback I'm trying to help them run their business, not hinder it. Agile dev teams like user feedback, even if they don't ultimately use all of it or any of it. Data is good.
While I understand what you are getting at, I doubt it will happen. While you are looking at it as having the ability to share with 36 people, they are looking at it as being generous to how many people you can fit into three campaigns. These people love D&D, and while they want you to be able to share your stuff with friends just like real life, they can only go so far. The long take on it is that they are a business, and business's either make money and prosper or they don't and stop existing.
The reason you only get three slots (five until the end of the year, which is also very generous) is that they want other people to subscribe as well. The more ways they allow people to share, the less subscriptions, the less money being made, etc, etc. This is not greedy, this is them doing what needs to be done to keep the business in shape and going.
I didn't come here to debate. I came to leave the devs feedback. Whether they use it or not is up to them. I never said they were greedy. All I did was describe how I use the system to maximize what I get out of it for my players and I as well as an idea that would enhance that user experience. It's not my job to decide if that idea jives with their business model. I don't know why other people are so quick to jump to their defense. If they don't consider my feedback then I won't lose any sleep. I'm just an end user providing feedback, not some whiny gamer coming to shit on anything. There is zero reason to come educate me on how businesses work or get all defensive on behalf of the devs whom I already respect and appreciate. I'm a programmer myself and my team is happy to have feedback even if it doesn't result in an action item. More data on what users are doing and want is good even if it's not used immediately, directly, or at all.
Don't limit players to 12 in shared campaigns. Instead, since we can have 5 shared campaigns, just let us have a total of 60 shared players and unlimited shared campaigns. All this current limit is doing is forcing me to create generic campaigns like "Chev's Campaign Share 1" and fill it up to the 12 max since one campaign might have 3 or 4 players and another might have 10. If we could just share content with 60 players total (12 * 5) then I could actually use campaigns as they are intended and have a 1:1 relationship with the actual campaign.
Currently I'm using only three campaigns because as far as I know this 5 campaign bonus was temporary and just for the pandemic. Which is cool but I don't want to have to deal with it when it switches back. So essentially I just have three generic campaigns that I stick people in and I have them append their character name with a campaign abbreviation. I think this could be better while still maintaining content sharing limits.
It would probably need a new sharing interface where I can share content with specific users and manage that list of users, but honestly that would be way more intuitive than it is currently. For example, if one player has two characters in my campaign is that taking up 1 or 2 slots? If I add NPC characters to my campaign do those take up sharing slots or is the system smart enough to only take up sharing slots when players add characters to my campaigns? Etc. etc. there are just a few question marks that aren't super obvious at first. I'm sure I could mess around and figure it out but it seems like a more intuitive content sharing management system would be a win either way :)
Thanks for your consideration! Love this service <3
I would like to play the game u have set up
so what your feedback is.... I use the campaign system wrong. Look yeah they allow 3 campaigns of up to 12 people, but that is because they want the campaign system used in the way it is implemented. What you are asking for is 60 people on one subscription. Which is frankly counter productive to a business.
To be fair, he has 5 campaigns (which was enabled during Covid quarantine, and they have not deleted existing campaigns to bring everyone back down to 3). With 12 in each of his campaigns, that does add up to 60 people. He's simply asking for a way to divide those people up in different proportions so that one campaign with only 5 people isn't wasted while another campaign with 14 people can't hold them all. I dunno why he'd have a campaign with that many people, but he's just asking for less strict divisions of campaigns... he's asking for a total player limit shared among campaigns rather than a per-campaign player limit.
Exactly. I don't know why that was so confusing. I even put the math my post. If those two extra campaigns ever fall back off it would be the equivalent of that 60 people dropping to 36. I'm not asking them to change the amount of sharing allowed. I'm just asking to be able to distribute that pool of people differently across campaigns.
"so what your feedback is.... I use the campaign system wrong."
Look up Desire Paths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path
Are the people walking wrong? Or did the path builders just fail to anticipate convenience? Most university campuses pave desire paths because fighting with your end users is the opposite way to make them happy. So when I use the campaign system in whatever way is currently easiest and makes the most sense to me and then I come here to provide feedback I'm trying to help them run their business, not hinder it. Agile dev teams like user feedback, even if they don't ultimately use all of it or any of it. Data is good.
While I understand what you are getting at, I doubt it will happen. While you are looking at it as having the ability to share with 36 people, they are looking at it as being generous to how many people you can fit into three campaigns. These people love D&D, and while they want you to be able to share your stuff with friends just like real life, they can only go so far. The long take on it is that they are a business, and business's either make money and prosper or they don't and stop existing.
The reason you only get three slots (five until the end of the year, which is also very generous) is that they want other people to subscribe as well. The more ways they allow people to share, the less subscriptions, the less money being made, etc, etc. This is not greedy, this is them doing what needs to be done to keep the business in shape and going.
I didn't come here to debate. I came to leave the devs feedback. Whether they use it or not is up to them. I never said they were greedy. All I did was describe how I use the system to maximize what I get out of it for my players and I as well as an idea that would enhance that user experience. It's not my job to decide if that idea jives with their business model. I don't know why other people are so quick to jump to their defense. If they don't consider my feedback then I won't lose any sleep. I'm just an end user providing feedback, not some whiny gamer coming to shit on anything. There is zero reason to come educate me on how businesses work or get all defensive on behalf of the devs whom I already respect and appreciate. I'm a programmer myself and my team is happy to have feedback even if it doesn't result in an action item. More data on what users are doing and want is good even if it's not used immediately, directly, or at all.