Please, stop posting build with the character planner layout!

[silverraven]

I believe that what he' saying is. If you want anybody to give their feedback, put a little effort into giving the info. If someone's gonna put their free time into feedback, then help make it as quick and as easy as possible, for them to do so.

[Borror0]

I believe that what he' saying is. If you want anybody to give their feedback, put a little effort into giving the info. If someone's gonna put their free time into feedback, then help make it as quick and as easy as possible, for them to do so.

That's about right.

But also, if you put more information... we're going to be able to give better feedback as we're going to have a better picture of the build and what you want/expect of it. If we have the HP, AC and saves... we'll have a fairly good idea of how it'll perform at end game. The rest, like DPS, is easy to guess by looking at the feats taken.

[transtemporal]

There was a couple of things that I liked out of some of Nick's/Sigtrents layouts too:

• A couple of bullet points at the start for the goals of the character; e.g. 500+ HP, AC50000 etc etc
• Notes about playing in different "modes"; e.g. nuker mode, melee mode
• Highlights and weaknesses
• Class Feats & level feats in a different colour in bold

Puts the build decisions in context and tells you what this build will be good at and not so good.

[Ron]

This issue has come up every once in a while. I'm always happy to make modifications to the code, and I've gone through the output a couple of times trying to make it better (i.e. easier to read). This is why I put in a whole host of checkboxes that let you specifiy exactly what you want to output, and even two presets! They were a ton of work, and I've found that absolutely nobody uses them. Everyone uses the default output, heh. Oh well.

The thing of it is, Borror0, the output has to satisfy two different things, and they are almost mutually exclusive, which makes things a bit tough. There are two reasons people output characters to the forum. The first is for feedback. For this, you don't necessarily need to display every skill-up or every spell taken. You are probably interested in the feats, stats, what stats were raised at 4,8,12,16, and so on. In addition, it's probably better to group them in that manner (as you say) so that people can easily see what feats you took over the life of the build. Or what enhancements, or whatever.

The other reason is for build reproduction. Which is to say, here is a build, this is what you need to do at each level in order to reproduce this build. In that sort of output you need a level by level breakdown, and it needs to detail every step. This is the method the planner has used. The reason being that the first method wouldn't work at all for the second, while the second works for the first (albiet, as you say, in a somewhat less than ideal manner in that you have to scroll around a bit).

By the way, the code boxes were added by request to keep the length of the post down. Not everyone likes them, I understand that. But if they weren't there, I'd get just as many complaints about how the planner output bloats forum posts. What are ya gonna do? Can't win either way

We're coming up on version 3.00 of the planner, so it's a good opportunity to make modifications. If you guys want to give me an output you think is better, AND satisfies the two criteria we have for output, I'll put it in. I'd be happy to! If we all want to come up with a consensus, that would be even better. We can't make everyone happy, but maybe we can make MORE people happy with it than we have now, heh.

[Kaldaka]

Trust me, if you like character planner, that means you have never analysed someone else's build.

Bor, I'm with you here bro ....

Using it for my own builds is very helpful. Using it for other's build analyzation is another thing ...

I think the problem might be that it comes through as a scrolling window inside Internet Explorer.

[ArkoHighStar]

Then stop doing it.

helpful as ever I see

[hydra_ex]

/sign

I lay out my builds kind of like illu does, very easy to read

Good to know that people do what I do (I was pretty sure they used it... but couldn't be positive...)

[Yaga_Nub]

Aspenor, corner! Stop acting like you're tough and uber.

Nobody puts Asp in the corner!

[DaveyCrockett]

Nobody puts Asp in the corner!

You really don't remember your prom night, do you?

[Ron]

Let me make comments as it pertains to coding and use. I like the format in general, but I see issues.

Issue #1 is that is does not satisty the second criteria (which is build reproduction).

Would you guys prefer, maybe, having two totally different sets of output? One for build reproduction (which stays essentially the same as it is now), and another closer to Borror0's format for build feedback? That might be a possibility to think about.

Well, I can always give my layout as an example.
First, I start with comments about the build. What I want of the build. Do I want high AC, or do I want to dump it totally. UMD? Trapskills? Got 32 point buy, or you're stuck at 28? Is there anything we should know about the playstyle. Maybe it's a solo chracter. Maybe it's for a dedicated group. Telling us more about the goals you have in mind will help us giving the proper feedback.

Obviously, this one's up to the user. The builder can't do it for you. Although I suppose there COULD be a section in the planner for "notes". Or, we just leave it up to the poster to fill them in.

[end game level break up] (example: 15 ranger/1 fighter)
Race:
Alignment:

Stats:
18 Str + 6 item + 4 level + 2 tome = 30 Str
8 Dex
18 Con + 6 item + 2 tome = 26 Con
8 Int
8 Wis
8 Cha

Any comment about your stats that can be helppful should be added.

Alright, first issue. "+6 item". I have tried to add in equipment to the planner, with varying levels of success. But it does require the user to add in their equipment, and I've found a lot of people don't really bother (which, to be honest, is the big reason it hasn't been much of a priority). We could, alternatively, just give them a +0 to +6 option for each stat for equipment bonus.

Feats:

• 1. Uber feat #1
• 3. Uber feat #2
• 6. Uber feat #3
• 9. Uber feat #4
• 12. Uber feat #5
• 15. Uber feat #6
• 15. Uber feat #7 (fighter)

Level order should go here.

Favored enemies for rangers should also be listed here.

No issues here, looks good, and the planner could do this already with it's existing code.

Armor Class:
If you care at all about AC, list it here. Otherwise, don't bother with it.

Try to divide the AC in at least three columns:

• Unbuffed
• Self-buffed
• Burst

While maximum AC in the perfect party-make-up may make you feel uber, it is totally unhelpful. Same to know you can reach XX AC while you have your Action Boost or Uncanny Dodge active. While those are high numbers, their value is laughable at best. what really matters is knowing where you'l be 90+% of the time. This is where stuff like being part of a dedicated groups comes into play.

This would require some major coding. There is an AC calculator in the program, but it's not so good right now. Breaking things up like this would be quite a bit of effort invested in new and updated code (not saying that it couldn't be done, or even shouldn't be done, just saying, heh).

Skills:

Breakdown of skills that needs to be broke down like UMD, Intimidate, Disable Device, Open Lock, Search, Spot, etc.
No one really cares about your end game Jump score, but knowing how high your UMD, Intimidate or rogue skills will be at matters.

You can do a level by level distribution of your skills, but that's optional.

• UMD:
  
  19 Ranks
  -1 Charisma bonus
  3 Golden Cartouche
  2 Head of Good Fortune
  4 Greater Heroism
  27 UMD
  
  
• Intimidate:
  19 Ranks
  -1 Charisma bonus
  15 Intimidate Helm
  2 Head of Good Fortune
  4 Greater Heroism
  39 Intimidate

Again, more equipment. Plus the situational bonuses. You see the problem I'm faced with. How do we get this equipment on the list? What bonuses do we display? Do we give a list of possible bonuses for each skill and let the user decide which ones to show? For that matter, how do we know what skills to display at all? Set up a series of 20 checkboxes?

The thing you have to remember, the harder it is to set up, the less it will be used. I see a potential UI nightmare here. There are too many variables. People won't use it. Already they don't use the output options I give them, and they are just a few checkboxes.

I think perhaps you may get an idea of WHY the forum output is in the format it's in, heh. But I'm open to suggestions.

The format you suggest would require some MAJOR revamps, not only to the output code, but to various parts of the planner, and I get a bad feeling it could get really complicated really fast for the users.

BTW, Borror0, someone has suggested adding a wiki style output as an option. It seems like a good idea to me. But I'm not a wiki expert. Would you be interested in collaberating on creating such an output?

[GeneralDiomedes]

The biggest improvement to readability would be to list feats/enhancements/etc. separately instead of listing it within each level. If people want to add more detail, then at least the have a readable skeleton to work with. If strict adherance to progression reproduction is still desired, then simply offer multiple output options.

Another suggestion to improve readability would be to omit the granted class feats.

[Ron]

The biggest improvement to readability would be to list feats/enhancements/etc. separately instead of listing it within each level. If people want to add more detail, then at least the have a readable skeleton to work with. If strict adherance to progression reproduction is still desired, then simply offer multiple output options.

Alright, doable. We split the output into two branches (three if we decide to do the wiki thing). Any other suggestions?

Another suggestion to improve readability would be to omit the granted class feats.

Already possible via checkbox. You see what I mean when I say that nobody uses the options that are already there

[Tanka]

A delineated output would be nice, yes, but it'd have to be something standard and not "check here for Option A, check here for B, check here for both, check here for..." That gets too overwhelming for the basic user and, well, some of us are lazy and would rather just copy/paste something than go through all those motions. Plus it's a nightmare on the UI.

One suggestion is something as minimal as Borro's output, and also adding in an Enhancement section where it says what Enhancement was taken at what level.

The gear part would be difficult to work in. Ron has been trying for a while, but with minimal success.

The other reason Ron's planner works well? Because not everybody knows HP/saves progression. His planner automates that, though it doesn't take into account items (which a knowledgeable user can add themselves, but a regular one probably won't ever bother).

So, yeah, the UI does make for hard build critiquing, but it also makes it easier for people to automate templates.

[GeneralDiomedes]

Alright, doable. We split the output into two branches (three if we decide to do the wiki thing). Any other suggestions?

I think that would be great just by itself, as most folks tend to post their builds that way nowadays.

[Missing_Minds]

Alright, doable. We split the output into two branches (three if we decide to do the wiki thing). Any other suggestions?

You could have a box for "click here to make forum readable output" that isn't default, but would auto select the options deemed wanted for build critics.

[ariel7]

Trust me, if you like character planner, that means you have never analysed someone else's build.

No, I don't think that's logical or true. It's certainly untrue, as I've analyzed other people's builds. For the most part I don't mind scrolling but I am used to working out problems using several different pieces of paper, and researching small points in different locations. The files (of builds posted in here) are really long, but I don't really think there is something that I've seen that is in an easier to read format that for whatever reason, suits my own preferences.

[RTN]

Alright, first issue. "+6 item". I have tried to add in equipment to the planner, with varying levels of success. But it does require the user to add in their equipment, and I've found a lot of people don't really bother (which, to be honest, is the big reason it hasn't been much of a priority). We could, alternatively, just give them a +0 to +6 option for each stat for equipment bonus.

Yes, please, I beg you!!! I could care less about adding named gear (except maybe raid gear w/ multiple things it affects). I'd dearly love to just have the ability to just add a +0 to +6. I'd prefer to be able to do that on a slot (i.e., select gloves, then STR then +5), but I'd take it anywhere I can get it, so long as it is reflected on saves, skills, etc.

Edit: And just let me say that I use your planner before making any character and find it extremely useful. That should preface any suggestion made. I really appreciate the time and effort you've put into this!

[Borror0]

The thing of it is, Borror0, the output has to satisfy two different things, and they are almost mutually exclusive, which makes things a bit tough.

Yeah, two option is definitively the way to go.

We can't make everyone happy, but maybe we can make MORE people happy with it than we have now, heh.

Agreed.

Would you guys prefer, maybe, having two totally different sets of output? One for build reproduction (which stays essentially the same as it is now), and another closer to Borror0's format for build feedback? That might be a possibility to think about.

It's definetively the way to go, in my eyes.

Something like:

• Forum export (build reproduction)
• Forum export (build presentation)

Obviously, this one's up to the user. The builder can't do it for you. Although I suppose there COULD be a section in the planner for "notes". Or, we just leave it up to the poster to fill them in.

Nah, don't bother with that. That was me adressing another issue with build presentation.

Alright, first issue. "+6 item". I have tried to add in equipment to the planner, with varying levels of success. But it does require the user to add in their equipment, and I've found a lot of people don't really bother (which, to be honest, is the big reason it hasn't been much of a priority). We could, alternatively, just give them a +0 to +6 option for each stat for equipment bonus.

How about a "Modify stats" tab where we could check spells or items we want. Sorted by bonus type.

No issues here, looks good, and the planner could do this already with it's existing code.

I would have bee surprised if it would have been an issue.

This would require some major coding. There is an AC calculator in the program, but it's not so good right now. Breaking things up like this would be quite a bit of effort invested in new and updated code (not saying that it couldn't be done, or even shouldn't be done, just saying, heh).

Same, what about an AC calculator. Period. You check what you want. I could help you making sure everything is there, if ya want.

You'd "just" have to code it.

Besides, the "burst" section can easily be dumped. 99% of the forum readers don't care about that, and even if they do, they will see either Uncanny Dodge or AC boost in the feat or enhancement section. If you want, we can discuss about that via IM. I got Skype or MSN... if I'm unclear.

Again, more equipment. Plus the situational bonuses. You see the problem I'm faced with. How do we get this equipment on the list? What bonuses do we display? Do we give a list of possible bonuses for each skill and let the user decide which ones to show? For that matter, how do we know what skills to display at all? Set up a series of 20 checkboxes?

Imagine the current skill tab, but with an extra column. That column will be for item. the rest are all bonus to all skills.

I can think of ONE exception... the bracers from Reaver. That's all.

BTW, Borror0, someone has suggested adding a wiki style output as an option. It seems like a good idea to me. But I'm not a wiki expert. Would you be interested in collaberating on creating such an output?

I don't mind helping but I don't see the use to it myself. Anyway, wiki syntax is really easy... and in doubts, HTML works.

[Borror0]

No, I don't think that's logical or true. It's certainly untrue, as I've analyzed other people's builds. For the most part I don't mind scrolling but I am used to working out problems using several different pieces of paper, and researching small points in different locations. The files (of builds posted in here) are really long, but I don't really think there is something that I've seen that is in an easier to read format that for whatever reason, suits my own preferences.

You're one of a few.

Just look at the comments on this thread, and a lot of people agree. Maybe you could take a little bit of time and do it, and it make a lot of forum readers' job much easier. Maybe you see no differences, but a lot of people see it. If you would take a bit more time to make it easier for us to read, you'd get more feedback. After all, you're posting it for people to see... rather than for yourself.

[ariel7]

You're one of a few.

Just look at the comments on this thread, and a lot of people agree. Maybe you could take a little bit of time and do it, and it make a lot of forum readers' job much easier. Maybe you see no differences, but a lot of people see it. If you would take a bit more time to make it easier for us to read, you'd get more feedback. After all, you're posting it for people to see... rather than for yourself.

Well, I will see about working on a template myself...see if I can bring something tangible to the table.

My main (I suppose) deficiency in this is a lack of programming and html type knowledge. I spent a few summers with my grand-father's sister who was researching for a book of hers, and have "old-school" research habits...so even when I posted that picture in another thread...that took a little learning how to do it lol. I will put forth an effort, though, see what I can come up with.