# I know but... e-tool = crap



## noretoc (Sep 7, 2002)

Yep, other people have said it, but I just got it, and can't believe it.  For such a simplistic program (and it really is) it is incredibly slow, has one of the worst interfaces I have ever seen, is unwieldy, and just a plain waste of money.  It looks like it has been put together by a bunch of high school kids.  I could have made a webpage using HTML that would run faster than this piece of crap, and do the same thing.  I am really dissapointed.  All the wait for this??  I think Fluid need a new occupation.  Obviously they can't produce software of any quality.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 7, 2002)

noretoc said:
			
		

> *I could have made a webpage using HTML that would run faster than this piece of crap, and do the same thing.*




Please do so!


----------



## Cergorach (Sep 7, 2002)

noretoc said:
			
		

> *I could have made a webpage using HTML that would run faster than this piece of crap, and do the same thing.*




You got my vote! So, when can we expect this excellent addition to EnWorld?


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 7, 2002)

noretoc said:
			
		

> *I could have made a webpage using HTML that would run faster than this piece of crap, and do the same thing.*




Cool! Will you be able to save characters? Keep us informed!


----------



## Chaz (Sep 7, 2002)

Yeah and dont forget table generation  
looking forward to it..... is it done yet? ......
.....how about now?


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Sep 7, 2002)

Nice!  That'll be great... I hope it has .xml export options.  

Will it support plugins if we run it locally?  It'd be pretty sweet if we could give it skins too.

-F


----------



## Gonzo the Mofo (Sep 7, 2002)

Mine runs at lightning speed.


----------



## Lord Darmeen (Sep 8, 2002)

I must have missed it somewhere, where is the link to the website mentioned in the original post? ....Will we be able to edit the database directly, or do we need to buy DreamWeaver or MSOffice XP to edit it?....I will look for the URL again after I am done posting...hmmmm, couldn't find it....noretoc, what is the URL for your character generator/monster generator/item generator/house rules editor/...couldn't find it anywhere.


----------



## Therigwin (Sep 8, 2002)

I think you guys broke my sarcasim meter 

I could take about 2 years and develop an app for the web.
It would be Lotus Notes Based, but why bother?  

eTools does it just fine for me.


----------



## Cergorach (Sep 10, 2002)

He! Where is our character generator?

Guys, i think we should all email him where the generator is he 'promised' us...


----------



## Darrin Drader (Sep 10, 2002)

I found that when I first had gotten E-tools, I had exactly the same opinion of the program that noretoc has. But then I replaced the picture of the Athach background with the nifty demonic skull someone posted a while back, and now I like it at least 300% more than I did then.

But hey, lets see your masterwork generator. I'm sure it will only take a couple hours to slop something together that is more versatile and just as accurate as E-tools. You've got my vote!


----------



## gregweller (Sep 11, 2002)

Remind me that if I ever post anything about the starter on my Kia Sportage being a piece of crap to *never ever* suggest that I could build a better one even if I don't know anything about automobile mechanics, even though I probably could.


----------



## Vicegrip (Sep 12, 2002)

--For all the folks repeating the same joke, how many of you are actually experienced programmers?
--I haven't seen e-tools, and I don't know if it's any good or not, but without a good mapping program, it's really not what it should be.  Even if it does exactly what it claims to with alacrity, it's still just an overly complex webtool.
--Take a look at Jamis Buck's character generators.  They're very quick, very easy, and very accurate.  They've also been available for quite a while, while e-tools (or whatever the name used to be) was screwing around in production.
--The fact is, using a database and a web scripting language, you can rapidly crank out stuff that can do anything e-tools purports to do.

--If the $35 tag is on the game content included with the disc, I can see that.  However, if it's supposed to be for the other features, that's a bit of a rip.


----------



## Therigwin (Sep 12, 2002)

I am a programmer.  Like I said, give me two years, and I could program something. But why???

Screw the map.  I don't need a map maker.  I use mastermaze by dwarvenforge.  For big area printed maps, I use autorealm, which is free.

Jamis Buck did a great job, but some of the randomness was too random for my tastes.

Another thing is the table generator in eTools is probably worth a good 50% of the cost of the product.  It is very powerful.

eTools is not perfect, but it is a good program.  When it is all patched up, my guess is a good majority of people will want to buy it.


----------



## Vicegrip (Sep 12, 2002)

[[ I am a programmer. Like I said, give me two years, and I could program something. But why??? ]]
--It's not so much that you should do it, as that you can.  Personally I think two years is a bit excessive to create this software.  More like 6 months, and that's for one person working at an average pace.
--But the point remains.  Jamis Buck's stuff might not be totally up your alley, but it's free and it works nicely.  Why is it worth $35 for something that's basically rehashing what Jamis does, and requires you to install and patch it to get it to work?


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 12, 2002)

Vicegrip said:
			
		

> *--For all the folks repeating the same joke, how many of you are actually experienced programmers?*




I am an experienced programmer, nearly 25 years now.



> *--I haven't seen e-tools, and I don't know if it's any good or not, but without a good mapping program, it's really not what it should be.  Even if it does exactly what it claims to with alacrity, it's still just an overly complex webtool.*




Clearly you haven't seen it, since it's not a webtool at all. 

It doesn't do everything you want it to. Gotcha.



> *--Take a look at Jamis Buck's character generators.  They're very quick, very easy, and very accurate.  They've also been available for quite a while, while e-tools (or whatever the name used to be) was screwing around in production.*




And Jamis will tell you in a second that his generators don't do near what eTools does. In addition, "screwing around in production" has nothing to do with the final tool, now does it?



> *--The fact is, using a database and a web scripting language, you can rapidly crank out stuff that can do anything e-tools purports to do.*




No, the fact is that duplicating the functionality of eTools would be a _bare minimum_ 3-month fulltime project, and only for a very talented programmer. The average programmer would take at least 6 months. And those are "programmer estimates." The reality is probably double those two numbers.

Where do you get your "fact"? If you're so in the know, why then haven't you produced the thing yourself, and ages ago? Trust me, it seems very easy until you actually try it.



> *--If the $35 tag is on the game content included with the disc, I can see that.  However, if it's supposed to be for the other features, that's a bit of a rip. *




Says you. I appreciate the fact that you don't think its worth $29.95 (the actual "tag"), but that's the only part of your post that is correct, and it's only correct in that it's your opinion.


----------



## Therigwin (Sep 12, 2002)

Because it does more.

Like I said, the table generator is incredible.

I programmed in my complete encounter for my players next big battle.
It show the init score of each of the opponets, what the rolled to hit, and how much damage they did.

It took 10 minutes to set that up, but in combat, I just hit the button each round and I am all set.

Secondly, I said 2 years, since I have 2 kids and a newborn coming in Dec, so my time is limited that I could develop it.

I think it is worth it.  But that is just my opinion.


----------



## Cergorach (Sep 13, 2002)

WOW! Another one who thinks that he can do better...

Buddy, just because you _say_ you can do something doesn't mean e, unless you actually make something you don't have my respect on this subject.

Yeah, i actually also think i could do better, but it would take me far to much time to get it done, and frankly that's not worth it to me. So i don't throw that idea in everyones face...


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 13, 2002)

Vicegrip said:
			
		

> *For all the folks repeating the same joke, how many of you are actually experienced programmers?*




Well, I am.



			
				Cergorach said:
			
		

> *Yeah, i actually also think i could do better, but it would take me far to much time to get it done, and frankly that's not worth it to me. So i don't throw that idea in everyones face... *




I feel exactly the same way.  If I was working with another programmer or two with reasonable skill and knowledge of D&D rules, and could devote full time to the project (i.e. as a primary job), I *do* think I could have done better, likely in less time.

I don't blame Fluid - WotC changed its mind many, many times, forcing Fluid to change midstream.  This is never good for the company.


----------



## Sm!rk (Sep 13, 2002)

Vicegrip said:
			
		

> *
> --It's not so much that you should do it, as that you can.  Personally I think two years is a bit excessive to create this software.  More like 6 months, and that's for one person working at an average pace.
> *




I think the point which many supposed intelligent humans fail to see and is standard fair for engineer types is that "the proof is in the pudding." Make the pudding and then say how good your pudding is, don't guess you could make tasty pudding in 6 months and expect anyone to consider that evidence of good pudding.

There is no such thing like "oh I could do that", if you haven't done it, you can't or won't, both are equally useless as supportive argument.

Saying you can build it better only shows that you have an inflated ego and doesn't help any of us that do want a better product.


----------



## Matthew The Mage (Sep 13, 2002)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> *I found that when I first had gotten E-tools, I had exactly the same opinion of the program that noretoc has. But then I replaced the picture of the Athach background with the nifty demonic skull someone posted a while back, and now I like it at least 300% more than I did then. *





Thanks i put that picture on the boards.

I thought it was also much better than the 3armed guy.
I mean it was a good picture but the skull just kinda fits better.


----------



## Matthew The Mage (Sep 13, 2002)

It has been 6 days and no update to his thread.

Lets all email him till he gives us and answer.


----------



## Therigwin (Sep 13, 2002)

Sorry, the 3 armed guy and the skull did not cut it for me.

Here is my contribution


----------



## Matthew The Mage (Sep 13, 2002)

Therigwin said:
			
		

> *Sorry, the 3 armed guy and the skull did not cut it for me.
> 
> Here is my contribution *




Our's is good also.


----------



## Therigwin (Sep 13, 2002)

Your is pretty good.

The Skull is cool.

But I thought that showing characters (since eTools is all about characters) was more inspiring.

I would have prefered if they would have rendered the Drider and put that on the cover, that would have been cool.

I am almost tempted to use the DM Screen JPG they included, if I had a 21 inch monitor.


----------



## Vicegrip (Sep 13, 2002)

[[ Where do you get your "fact"? If you're so in the know, why then haven't you produced the thing yourself, and ages ago? Trust me, it seems very easy until you actually try it. ]]
--You want to pay me to do it?
--If you don't agree with my "facts," don't agree with them.

[[ No, the fact is that duplicating the functionality of eTools would be a bare minimum 3-month fulltime project, and only for a very talented programmer. ]]
--Yup.  And then, if you're a good little consultant, you double it.  So I said 6 months.
--Don't believe that I'm a talented programmer?  Ok, don't.

[[ Saying you can build it better only shows that you have an inflated ego and doesn't help any of us that do want a better product. ]]
--Aha.  So if somebody asserts superiority, they must actually be inferior.  How charmingly leftist of you.
--It's not that useful to demand proof that takes 6 months.  It's actually fairly disingenuous.  Basically what it amounts to is me saying "I can prove my case given six months."  You're saying "given six months you'd only be proven wrong."  We both need 6 months to prove our cases, only you want to assume you're right now.
--Not that I blame you.  Most people overinflate their abilities, and to assume that the random person on the notesboard is doing so is totally justified.  But don't presume that it's much of a proof.  It's just as likely that Fluid overestimated the difficulties that faced them as it is that I overestimate my abilities to overcome difficulty.  After all, I'm not the one that's shown a strong commitment to slipping timelines, and dropped features.

--And what about those of us who want a better product?
--This thread is meant to evaluate the usefulness of the e-tools product, and possibly to decide if it's as much as we can expect from such a product.
--I'd wager it's not.  I told you why I'd wager it's not.  If you don't agree, then that answers the question for you.  I don't need to prove anything.


----------



## Cergorach (Sep 13, 2002)

Vicegrip said:
			
		

> --And what about those of us who want a better product?



Stop saying that, either finance a new attempt yourself, or make a new attempt yourself. Anything else is just a waste of words and frankly, my time.


> --This thread is meant to evaluate the usefulness of the e-tools product, and possibly to decide if it's as much as we can expect from such a product.



This thread is only meant for our amusement, the person who started it contributed absolutely nothing usefull. The rest of us where just making fun of him, repeatedly. The only reason why we keep returning to this thread is to keep it on top so that no one else spews these kinds of useless arguments. But for some reason you don't see that, so instead of trying to make a better rpg tool, you might want to get away from that computer screen and get out a bit and work on your social skills so the next time you read a thread like this you've learned to read between the lines. Now bugger off!

*gets off his tomato crate and dusts of his pants*

Anyone else wants a swing at him? ;-p


----------



## dpdx (Sep 14, 2002)

Vicegrip said:
			
		

> *--Aha.  So if somebody asserts superiority, they must actually be inferior.  How charmingly leftist of you.*



How utterly devoid of logic that was.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 14, 2002)

Vicegrip said:
			
		

> *[[ Where do you get your "fact"? If you're so in the know, why then haven't you produced the thing yourself, and ages ago? Trust me, it seems very easy until you actually try it. ]]
> --You want to pay me to do it?
> --If you don't agree with my "facts," don't agree with them.*



How can I agree with your "facts?" How can anyone who's a programmer. You specifically said, and I quote, "The fact is, using a database and a web scripting language, you can rapidly crank out stuff that can do anything e-tools purports to do." So six months is "rapidly crank out"? (Note that your "6 month" figure was only posted after I had replied.) How is that "rapidly crank(ing) out" anything? Do you consider half a year of programming to be trivial, something that is "crank(ed) out"?



> *[[ No, the fact is that duplicating the functionality of eTools would be a bare minimum 3-month fulltime project, and only for a very talented programmer. ]]
> --Yup.  And then, if you're a good little consultant, you double it.  So I said 6 months.
> --Don't believe that I'm a talented programmer?  Ok, don't.*



Your seeming lack of ability to use quote tags does, indeed, lead me to question your talent, along with your considering six months of programming a "rapidly crank(ed) out" effort.

I don't get where you're coming from. Are you claiming that Jamis' NPC generators do what eTools does? You certainly no longer seem to be claiming that the programming is trivial, so what's your deal there? You haven't used the application and you haven't tried to program it, so where does your scoffing come from? How can you just base your rant on other people's rants? I don't get it. I understand the application doesn't do what you want it to do. Where does the rest of your stuff come from?


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 14, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *Saying you can build it better only shows that you have an inflated ego and doesn't help any of us that do want a better product. *






			
				Vicegrip said:
			
		

> *--Aha.  So if somebody asserts superiority, they must actually be inferior.  How charmingly leftist of you.*






			
				dpdx said:
			
		

> *How utterly devoid of logic that was. *




I'm not seing much logic in any of these, frankly.


----------



## Therigwin (Sep 14, 2002)

Logic
 

Were supposed to be logical???

 

I just can't be mad?  

Oh well


----------



## Matthew The Mage (Sep 14, 2002)

Therigwin said:
			
		

> *Your is pretty good.
> 
> The Skull is cool.
> 
> ...




My bad  . I meant to type Yours is cool also.
Sorry but typing before coffee is a bad idea.


----------



## Chaz (Sep 14, 2002)

Ouch, guys lets let this one die haha.

**chaz shoots this thread in the head and hopes it dies**


----------



## Sm!rk (Sep 14, 2002)

Learn to quote properly, its not too difficult and in fact reply with quotes will handle all but adequate trimming, as evidence of this great and magical feature:




			
				Vicegrip said:
			
		

> *
> [[ Saying you can build it better only shows that you have an inflated ego and doesn't help any of us that do want a better product. ]]
> --Aha.  So if somebody asserts superiority, they must actually be inferior.  How charmingly leftist of you.
> --It's not that useful to demand proof that takes 6 months.  It's actually fairly disingenuous.  Basically what it amounts to is me saying "I can prove my case given six months."  You're saying "given six months you'd only be proven wrong."  We both need 6 months to prove our cases, only you want to assume you're right now.
> *




Clueless, troll or naive, pick one. My statement has nothing to do with your skill, or your ego, it has to do with one simple fact: I have etools in front of me and it does some "stuff", your app (the original posters) is only a twisted ego dream, in your head. In a true sense of rational and pragmaticism, anything(etools) is infinitely more important and valuable than nothing (your mentioned unmade product).


As for leftism, I guess I can say that I do feel that to arbitrarily state superiority showing no cause or proof of that, does in fact make you inferior. Thats only to say that having an inflated ego, or a need to inflate your ego is an inferior life model. My view is not strange or complex, naturally if you raise yourself up, by another perspective you have lowered everyone else, so do the math. (Tip: There are more of the latter than the former in that equation.)


----------



## Lazarus Smith (Sep 15, 2002)

A wise man once said:

No matter how bad you are, there is always someone out there who is worse, because they think that they are better.

I am not a programmer, I am a fantasy author.  E-Tools is VERY useful in several ways (yes, the table creator is great).  However, it is incomplete in several ways as well.

To think that you, or anyone, could "crank out" a better version than this is simple hubris.

I do appreciate everyone who has worked so hard to make the best of a bad situation, but you guys who want to get in a prick waving contest are really starting to bore me.  

I do wish that some of you had been on the team of developers over at Fluid.  Many of you have great ideas, and I would have liked to see them realized.  They will not be, though, for the same reason that Fluid has put E-Tools on the back burner.  You, like them, are not getting paid.  Fluid made their money, we got the disks.  Period.  Want to make it better?  Please do.  Like I said, I appreciate all of you who really try.  I've got the Happy Mr. Skull too.  People like Eric, Davin, Paris, and all of the others rock, as well as you guys who have posted legitimate ideas here.

No, I'm not a programmer, but you know what, E-Tools wasn't made for programmers.  It was made for idiots like me.  I could not have created a sliver of the neat stuff that E-Tools is capable of (though I could have done the art better, and have replaced much of the art design on my own)

Dead horse beaten?


----------



## Chaz (Sep 15, 2002)

Lazarus Smith said:
			
		

> *Dead horse beaten? *





Long ago


----------



## Henry (Sep 16, 2002)

Any future replies to this thread need to remember two things:

#1. Grandmother's watching.

#2. Insulting other people makes Grandmother cry.

I myself was not thoroughly pleased with Fluid's finished product, but calling it "crap" is invalidating the countless hours of work and playtesting that went into creating a still-useful tool. 

After reading Scott Matthews' interview with Eric Noah, I can say that I honestly WILL shed a tear for all the work that Fluid's Eric and others did on the map-maker, audio play, etc. - that wound up on the "cutting-room floor." The potential for an all-encompassing gaming tool is enormous, and I am very sorry to see that so much work was essentially lost.


----------



## colossus (Sep 16, 2002)

COLOSSUS smiles, switches windows, and gets back to work on a character sheet to help the community.

"You're in a room..."  He mutters to himself.

Let's Play D&D!
COLOSSUS


----------



## Vicegrip (Sep 16, 2002)

[[ This thread is only meant for our amusement, the person who started it contributed absolutely nothing usefull. ]]
--No?  I think he did, you're just too emotional to see it.
--What he said, while framed in an aggressive and somewhat juvenile fashion, was pretty accurate.  I think we still should be looking around for the defining RPG/d20 electronic product.  I don't think that this most recent offering does the job.  You can go after his style if you want, and obsess over his unwillingness to cater to your fragile online feelings, or you can try to glean some value from the discussion.
--It's pretty simple dude.  If we continue to clamor for a better product, marketing people will hear that, and funding might show up for it.  If you sit there poking happily at a product that only does half of what it should, chances are it's all you'll ever have.

[[ How utterly devoid of logic that was. ]]
--Wow.  I repeat somebody else's flawed logic in a sarcastic manner, and somehow I become guilty of the flawed logic.

[[ Note that your "6 month" figure was only posted after I had replied. ]]
--You sure about that?  Care to go back and check?  Probably not.  Let me do it for you.  My mention of a 6 month timeline occurs at 09-13-2002 12:34 AM.  Your first post on this thread that's not just a rehash of the same jab at the thread starter was at 09-13-2002 12:46 AM.  Why does this even matter?  Why say incorrect things when they don't even strengthen your point?

[[ Do you consider half a year of programming to be trivial, something that is "crank(ed) out"? ]]
--Yes and no.  Considering that I would expect to have the thing done in 3 months, then spend another 3 dealing with the publisher or whoever else, and considering that it's a fairly large scope project, then yeah, I'd call that "cranking it out."  In this case I'm factoring in the scope of the project, and the fact that there's no really huge programming hurdles to overcome.  I use the term 'crank' to imply that the development should be smooth and trouble free, despite being time consuming.  There's no firewalls to suddenly appear and require a tunnel to get through, there's no media streams that suddenly need to be embedded, no access to a remote system that isn't getting processed for a week.  It's just straight HTML, scripting and database.  I use the term "crank" to mean that you'd be able to work uninterrupted, and thus steadily and rapidly.  The actual time taken isn't really what I'm speaking to.
--So, I apologize for using a term in an idiosyncratic fashion.  I hope I have clarified.

[[ You certainly no longer seem to be claiming that the programming is trivial, so what's your deal there? ]]
--No, it's pretty trivial.  There's just a lot of it to be done.
--My deal is simple.  The product that's being offered here was in production for over a year, and was being worked on by a TEAM of people.  My 6 month figure is for a single person working on the project.  Give me a couple of my friends to handle various components of the tool, and we could have it done it 2 months.
--You're flipping back and forth between a single person and a team, and not even seeing that you're doing it.

[[ Learn to quote properly ]]
--I prefer to quote with square braces.  Sorry if it doesn't hit your eye well.  Not all BBs have a quote feature.  Not all allow you to italicize.  All keyboards have square braces and dashes.

[[ Clueless, troll or naive, pick one. ]]
--Jeez, what was I thinking?  This is the internet, where "not nice" and "factually incorrect" are synonyms.  I should spend my first three weeks on this board posting polite little "me toos" and sucking up to the regulars until I know how to ingratiate myself to the current power structure.
--Or perhaps not.

[[ In a true sense of rational and pragmaticism, anything(etools) is infinitely more important and valuable than nothing (your mentioned unmade product). ]]
--Absolutely true.  E-tools is clearly a product with some value.  I'm not suggesting it's a bad product and shouldn't be purchased, because it's your money to spend as you wish.  What I am saying, is that we can still hope for more from such a product.  You should be encouraging people who claim they can do better, rather than lording over your little fiefdom of love for e-tools.  You should also be keeping the call out for a defining product, as I mentioned earlier.

[[ To think that you, or anyone, could "crank out" a better version than this is simple hubris. ]]
--Ok, look.  It's not.  I know we all like to be as polite, humble and friendly to our online pals as possible, but this quote is just not correct.
--Somewhere in this world are a collection of people who could have stepped in, kicked the ass off this project, and turned out something that would amaze everyone.  These weren't the folks that worked on it.  Now, you may not think I'm not one of those ass kicking guys, and honestly I don't expect you to.  However, they are out there, and Fluid's effort was clearly not the upper limit of what we can expect.  It's not hubris to assume that somebody could have done better.
--Just to put this all in context, I think it's worth mentioning how good I think d20 is.  I'm not somebody who just dismisses everything as inferior to what I "could" do.  I think d20 is an incredibly well thought out and well organized system, and I think that only enhances the ways it can tie in with electronic products.  And THAT only weakens the degree to which e-tools impresses me.  If they had made the same featureset for 2e DnD that'd be fairly impressive, for all the twisted up and confused rules that game had.  But this is 3e.  It's a great game that demands great products.

[[ I do wish that some of you had been on the team of developers over at Fluid. ]]
--I don't want to put these guys down too much.  From the sound of it, the real weakness of this project was in the management of it.  However, management is part of the picture.  If anything, that only serves to show how a dedicated independent (somebody like Jamis Buck, again) might be better qualified to produce some nice stuff than a team of folks who have to answer to corporate timelines and the like.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 16, 2002)

Vicegrip said:
			
		

> *[[ Note that your "6 month" figure was only posted after I had replied. ]]
> --You sure about that?  Care to go back and check?  Probably not.  Let me do it for you.  My mention of a 6 month timeline occurs at 09-13-2002 12:34 AM.  Your first post on this thread that's not just a rehash of the same jab at the thread starter was at 09-13-2002 12:46 AM.  Why does this even matter?  Why say incorrect things when they don't even strengthen your point?*



You posted while I was composing mine. It did matter because you callied it trivial and I was noting that it was not. After I had posted I was then able to see your six-month estimate. 

None of which matters for crap, of course.

And... based on postings on Fluid's boards, it appears that the vast majority of the code was, actually, written by one person.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 16, 2002)

Lazarus Smith said:
			
		

> *To think that you, or anyone, could "crank out" a better version than this is simple hubris.*




This is deceptive and factually incorrect.  There are many who could do a better job than what Fluid did, given time and money.  The six-month figure looks too low to me, given what I know about the scope of the project, but surely it's possible given more people and time.

I'm not spealking from ignorance - I know many of the programmers on these boards, and I've done a fair bit of D&D programming myself.  My generators (dragon, stat block, et. al.) too under 200 hours of coding - imagine what I could have done with more than 3-4 fulltime weeks!

Jamis Buck made an NPC generator soon after 3E was released, and it incorporates many of the features in eTools.  Luke's RPM may not be as user-friendly (now), but it has more raw power and adaptability.  PCGen has data from dozens of 3rd party companies.  Twin Rose's Campaign Suite is powerful, extremely adaptable, and purely data-driven.  _What makes you think no one could make a better version?_  With the exception of the last software package, these were all done by people in their free time.  With full time it would be (I daresay) trivial.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 16, 2002)

I think we've just run into a definition problem, that's all. For some of us "crank out" is basically the same as "whip out," while for others it seems to mean "work over a period of time without the work being too deep." 

I generally hear "crank out" as the former, and the reality is that none of the programmers here, me included, could "crank out" a better eTools in 20 hours or even 200 hours. That's how I read "crank out." 

If you use the latter definition, then most of us would agree, I think. That is, it's not a deep technical puzzle, but it would take 1,000 hours or so, depending on skill.


----------



## Vicegrip (Sep 17, 2002)

[[ That is, it's not a deep technical puzzle, but it would take 1,000 hours or so, depending on skill. ]]
--That's how I was using it for the most part, as I tried to clarify earlier.  I'm used to working in a business environment, where the challenges are never that great, and all the blocking factors are political and monetary, rather than technical, so to me just being able to work at something unhindered is a seriously cool situtation.


----------



## Lazarus Smith (Sep 17, 2002)

Okay, a clarification is in order:

By "crank out", I do indeed mean the definition that includes hurried, un-thought out work.

I do not intend to demean ANYONES programming skills but my own.

Given enough time, I'm sure you guys could create something far better that E-Tools (especially if some people, not all, put aside ego and worked together).  I am just saying that this will probably never happen, because each of us has to put food on the table, and since nobody right now is paying you to create this hot new software, it isn't getting created.

Would I like to see what you guys could create?  Hell yeah.  Can I finance it?  Sorry, not rich yet.  I do however love gaming, and if I had the money, I'd drop it on you guys in a second.  And if you "cranked out" a piece of crap, I'd be highly suprised.  

So, here is the gauntlet being thrown.  If we were to turn you guys into a team of designers dedicated to doing right what Fluid did wrong, what would each of you contribute?  This is a serious line of questioning.  What are you BEST at, and how would you innovate?

Lazarus


----------



## Breakdaddy (Sep 25, 2002)




----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 25, 2002)

Lazarus Smith said:
			
		

> *So, here is the gauntlet being thrown.  If we were to turn you guys into a team of designers dedicated to doing right what Fluid did wrong, what would each of you contribute?  This is a serious line of questioning.  What are you BEST at, and how would you innovate?*




That's a good question.  I think that I would do best to swallow my pride and do a side part of it, leaving the meat to a better programmer - Jamis, perhaps.  I think my component would be the custom class maker, a small but crucial (not to mention complex) part of the code.  Failing that, I'd work on a race creator - making it extensible so there's no need to start over if a poor choice is made (wrong type, for example).

Contrary to a view expressed elsewhere in the thread, I don't think it's doable in 6 months, at least not to my specs.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 25, 2002)

I would focus on user interface, since I have a lot of experience there, including starting and running a usability lab. I know that it can be difficult to implement a good UI when there are technical limitations and time is tight, but I believe I could do a better job than eTools. So... I offer to focus on that, along with requirements definition (which is pretty much what I do for a living now).

If this gets serious, I'll certainly elucidate on what I'd do.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 25, 2002)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> *I would focus on user interface[...]*




Wow, that would be great!  Too bad this'll never happen (assuming no one on the 'what would you do if you owned WotC' thread wins the lottery).

I have all the user-interface talent of... uh... someone with no user-interface talent?


----------



## AZRAEL66 (Sep 25, 2002)

c'mon, Fluid deserves some respect. I have a copy of e-tools,
and although i am not pleased with it, i believe it was
released for a reason. we ARE the reasons.
maybe if we send our comments, we can convince them to
make good in their next project (if there is one)
after all, everyone learns from their mistakes.


yes, yes, e-tools is definitely a mistake. 
all mistakes can be corrected. i hope.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 25, 2002)

AZRAEL66 said:
			
		

> *c'mon, Fluid deserves some respect. I have a copy of e-tools,
> and although i am not pleased with it, i believe it was
> released for a reason. we ARE the reasons.
> maybe if we send our comments, we can convince them to
> ...




I don't blame Fluid for it - it was WotC's changing demands that doomed it.  Much, but not all, of that comes from their deal with InfoGrames.


----------



## Hardhead (Sep 25, 2002)

IMO, now that PCGen's UI has been cleaned up, it beats the socks off of e-tools in almost every category.  It can support such a wide range of feats PrCs, and special abilities that e-tools simply can't, due to code limitations. 

But, unfortunately, PCGen doesn't support those anymore either.  That's not a problem with the code, though, it's just that WotC asked them to remove it all.  

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that someone out there needs to create a program that creates PCGen lst files simplay and easily, thus getting around that problem.  We've already got a full-fledged character generator with all the knobs on, at least under the hood.  Now if someone would just make it accessible to Joe Average, it'd run circles around e-tools.


----------



## Klintus Fang (Sep 30, 2002)

Therigwin said:
			
		

> *Your is pretty good.
> 
> The Skull is cool.
> 
> ...




ha ha ha!  a 21 inch monitor is no where near big enough for that monstrosity.  It looks to me like you'd need at least 36 inches for that to be any use!


----------



## Klintus Fang (Sep 30, 2002)

Lazarus Smith said:
			
		

> *So, here is the gauntlet being thrown.  If we were to turn you guys into a team of designers dedicated to doing right what Fluid did wrong, what would each of you contribute?  This is a serious line of questioning.  What are you BEST at, and how would you innovate?
> 
> Lazarus *




I wasn't here when the question was asked but I would want to have a hand in designing the underlying data structures in which the stat's are stored;  data structures which store the character's stats internally in a "histrorical" basis so one could easily remove levels or slap templates on and then back off again without having to code any workarounds.


----------



## Klintus Fang (Sep 30, 2002)

Therigwin said:
			
		

> *Sorry, the 3 armed guy and the skull did not cut it for me.
> 
> Here is my contribution *




FWIW:  I prefer a minimalist approach.  here is my contribution:


----------



## ejja_1 (Sep 30, 2002)

Originally posted by Lazarus Smith 
So, here is the gauntlet being thrown. If we were to turn you guys into a team of designers dedicated to doing right what Fluid did wrong, what would each of you contribute? This is a serious line of questioning. What are you BEST at, and how would you innovate?

Lazarus 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could be the voice on your automated customer service line.
If you would like to beat a corporate exec press 1
If you would like to stab a corporate exec press 2
If you would like to shoot a corporate exec press 3
If you think you could make a better version of this software, please send your resume to Wizards of the Cost at
Wewantyourmoneyandfristbornchild.com

Ejja


----------



## Lazarus Smith (Oct 1, 2002)

Again I must post my dismay at never getting to see the product.
Maybe somebody at WOTC will see this post (yeah right) and figure out that you guys ARE the real deal.

Thanks, I never thought I would get so many legitamate responses.


----------

