Jun 012016

Wordle of Severlin's latest Producer Letter
Graphing because I can!

Perhaps that is too succinct. I believe it is possible, sometimes, to see what someone is thinking in greater clarity by applying simple math to their words. Nothing fancy, just word counts/histograms.

I have no research to back this up, other than empirical evidence. For instance, if one were to histogram the inside of my brain it would look something like Games/computer/BOOBS which is a fairly accurate synopsis of me and my priorities.

But enough with my words. Let’s look at Severlin’s latest Producer Letter, again, but this time with faux-math!


Word counts by discussion topic


A decent spread, lots of emphasis on Classes and Augments and Races and Slavers.

It is worth noting that I could never do this kind of analysis with former producer Fernando’s letters. They were almost all fluff. The ratio of fluff-to-meaningful content is very much in Severlin’s favor.


Word counts by discussion topic


Now we are seeing the real point, if there is one at all, in that Systems talk dominates the letter. Again.


Word counts by discussion topic


A further glimpse into the future than Severlin’s previous letter. Which I appreciate. I understand that Turbine plans for the future are subject to change; they have to be, it is reality. The current emphasis on Tieflings and Aasimar could turn into something else entirely by the time they get around to implementation.

But that’s okay. Looking into the far future provides assurance that there will be a far future. Where new races are still being introduced. Accuracy is less important here than simple hope. A man’s gotta have hope, right?

A final “chart” in the form of a Wordle showing word repetitions by size and color:


Wordle of Severlin's latest Producer Letter

I had to take the word “Looking” out of this as it was far and away the most used word even though it didn’t add anything to the analysis.


There it is again, SYSTEM, the dominant topic.

But in fairness, PLAYERS are equally ranked. And WANTED is right up there too; Severlin is trying to deliver what the players want. I don’t think we want as much systems work as he thinks we want, but he has the Players Council and exit surveys and other means of input to help him determine what players actually want.

I, on the other hand, have a basket full of wild-ass guesses.

I think the wise man would take the focus groups and surveys over the basket full of wild-ass guesses.

One more thing, and this one heartens me greatly: the results of this analysis are slanted to show systems over content. Not by me, I am just doing math. But by Severlin himself; he has come up with some sort of rule for his letters where he will only talk about content one update in the future.

We generally don’t talk about content further out than one update. We certainly intend, as an example, to do additional raids in the future.

Apparently systems work is not subject to the same self-censoring.

Meaning … we are always going to hear more about systems than we are about content.

Meaning also … I am always going to be annoyed by this. I love new content. I only like new systems (and not always even that).

So pay no attention to me. Frankly, I would hope that everyone learned this lesson long ago, nothing here but useless tripe and inanity. If you want real insight you are going to have to look elsewhere.

Useless tripe, and inanity. And graphs. Oh, and bad haiku.

That too.

πŸ™‚ πŸ˜€ πŸ™‚

  6 Responses to “Graphing the Latest Producer Letter”

Comments (6)
  1. He is Gamer Geoff
    Renowned for daily posts of
    Silly tripe and stuff.

  2. I do believe you mean “anecdotal” and not “empirical”.

      • Since you’re referring to actual stats as far as number of times each word is used and such, yeah, “empirical” works.

        (Acanthia is currently jumping up and down screaming, “Monk pass! Monk pass! Monk pass!”)

        • For his analysis of the letter, yes, I would agree that he applied an “empirical” method. However, in the context of how he used “empirical”, I still believe “anecdotal” is the more correct. He hypothesizes that one can tell what someone is thinking in greater clarity by word count, but he has no research (i.e. “empirical” data), only his own inward reflection of how his mind/histograms would indicate (i.e. unscientific observations; “anecdotal” evidence).

          But hey, I’ve been wrong once or twice before.

  3. I was concerned about the wild ass-guesses, until I reread that πŸ˜‰

    I’m certainly going to be interested in the unarmed [possible] revamp! Druids and monks will either rejoice or lament…

What do you think?

%d bloggers like this: