and it exceeds what most similar tools offered on day one.
Nothing wrong with the rest of the post, but this is, IMO, always the wrong comparison to make. The new VT is not competing with MapTool or Fantasy Grounds or any of those as they were, it's competing with them as they are.
I really like your posts, but here I disagree. The situation is different. If I were beta testing GameOnline, a fictitious third party product that will premiere at Gen Con next year and wants to take on the other online gaming tools, I would completely agree. I would have a laundry list of demands and I would really expect there to be some serious functionality offerings in beta. I would be hoping for a few really revolutionary advancements, at least one, that would give a competitive edge. If I headed up the project (I manage IT projects in RL), I would have a big matrix of competitor features and a plan for which ones to tackle and a burning desire to match or beat the vast majority.
But, this is WotC. They enjoy a platform benefit. They are the game. Moreover, they aren't trying to win the online tool war (if you can call a sector likely without any profit whatsoever a " business war"... I would argue otherwise). Their war is content delivery. What WotC likely wants to do is to meet some solid functional benchmarks, while enjoying the enviable position of being the only player that could seamlessly move content into the software. Release a new class, short time later it is in the VTT. Release a dungeon article, short time later it is in the VTT. That's just something no third party can keep up with (and, of course, to do so, they must have licenses, so WotC wins too).
Also, the base is very tolerant. OpenRPG has been used widely for ages, and the list of things it needs (and of strange development twists and turns) is long. And yet, for many it is a chat tool and die roller with minis and maps and that's all they need. We should not guess that those of us with MT or FG experience so truly know the needed features for VTT to be successful. The other day someone ran an L5R game (Legend of the Five Rings) on miRC.
I would guess that VTT needs to be capable but not incredibly robust. It needs to be good enough that you can play and not be terribly inconvenienced, and simple enough for the average user that has never used an online tool. It needs to have integration of CB and MB such that you gain a real leg up as compared to other tools. So long as that is true, the VTT will likely achieve the core goals of driving up D&D play and increasing the value proposition of a DDi package... or maybe of being sold on its own... but even then it isn't competing with the other platforms, because the company is still all about its core product, not software.
When I look at it that way, the tool is really good. Today. Right now. Right now it is a really good tool for a company that wants to sell content and provide an easy way for players to play D&D. The barrier to entry is low. Live in SmallTown and have no players or DM? No problem. Take that Essential PC you just made, bring it into the VTT and play... oh, and perhaps we can interest you in the latest offering...
And, like Enlightened Grognard wrote today, WotC is probably better off keeping this tool simple and focused. Make this good enough but stay focused on core business segments. WotC should not try to engage in a competitive business war with other platforms.
I suppose that it is silly of me to mention that the VT is *still* in beta...right?
No, it's silly for you and others to come and say how great it is, when it's still in beta and try and sell us on it at this point. I don't expect it to be perfect. But I know when someone is putting a spin on things. Does the table have potential? Of course it does.
So when people are saying that it works great for them...they are then lying? There is *no* NDA for this. There have also been no shortage of reviews of it saying "it is good, but it has the potential to be so much better, if only they would add x, y, z".
You know what's even more annoying? When someone comes back with a rebutal like this.
Have I accused anyone of lying? You don't have to lie to put a spin on something. Saying it's easier to log on then Maptools isn't a lie. But like I pointed out, it's not like that is a feature people DON'T expect in this day and age, nor is having an easy login to a server anything amazing, it's standard now.
Since MapTool doesn't use a central server, it has to work differently. So saying it's easy to log in, isn't really saying how great the VT is. Besides, having to loging to a server to use it, over players having to configure ports to connect to each other, comes with all it's potential issues that could be server side related, or the persons side.
After all it's easy to log into this forum, and yet there are numerous posts about having issues using features of it, like...oh the Help Tab, where you need to post in a thread to have some one come and fix your account. Well known long existing issue for a site that is easy to log into. Because something wasn't set up right when some accounts were generated I'm guessing.
So easy login doesn't mean problems go away.
But from everything you and others are saying, that potential doesn't seem to be what they are going for with it. And when pointed out, it all comes across as excuses or trying to justify.
Odd. I haven't been aware of any post by WotC indicating *where* they plan on going and what features that they plan on adding. The only indication that I have ever seen is WotC discussing the potential for integration of the tools. Could you point out to me the posts where WotC has indicated where WotC say that they are going with the vt?
If there isn't any NDA, then why doesn't WoTC come and give some more information and start answering some of all the questions about what features they are going to/want to have in it?
Can't have it both ways. Can't be all, we are open and talking and have eased off the no talking policy. Provided you don't ask any questions we haven't answered already.
So, with no NDA, how come so much about the VT and living up to it's potential is being left in the dark?
Ok, after a few hours with the new VT (just got my beta invite), here are some observations.
The good: 1. Simple to use, and would be simplier if I could import from the CB and MB, but I can't since my DDI account expired a few2 weeks ago. 2. Simple to put together basic maps using the supplied tiles. 3. I like the AoE drawing tool. Simple to use and effective. 4. Line of Sight tool is nive to have. 5. Integrated voice chat = awesome! 6. Die rolling is simple. 7. Like the voice changing options. 8. Can easily make multiple maps and switch between them. 9. Simple to use seems to be the underlying theme, which is a good thing. As long as they keep that in mind, this will be a useful tool.
The bad: 1. Need the ability ti flip tiles as well as rotate. 2. Needs to have some kind of good wall tiles. Too many doors, no walls. 3. Needs to have a vastly larger set of tiles to draw from. We need to make outdoor areas, city areas...I know it's Dungeons and Dragons, but we go outside every so often too. 4. Die rolling can be tedius. Select the d20, roll to attack, unselect the d20, select the d10, roll to damage, unselect the d10, reselect the d20 to make a perception roll. Etc, etc... 5. No way to set states, as far as I can tell. 6. Can only apply bloodied and marked status on monster nor PC tokens. Nothing for dazed, prone, ongoing damage, nothing. You can only type in extra statuses. 7. No way to undo a drawing. I.E. No CTRL-Z function. 8. In order to edit a token, you have to select it, click edit, change something (like hitpoints and statuses) then save it. Very cumbersome after the automation lovliness of Maptool. 9. No vision blocking. Once you reveal a portion of the map, it's revealed. Your monster can run behind the bookcase to hide, but everyone can still see where he is. 10. No way to select and move multiple tokens. Have to drag/drop each one individually. 11. The "name" tool doesn't seem to do anything at all. 12. Map area is pretty big, but will not be big enough for some of the epic maps like Temple of Elemental Evil or the Undermountain and there is no way to adjust the map size. 13. Complete lack of automation. Everything is manual, which will over burden the DM and slow down gameplay. If the new VT can't speed up an already slow, encounter heavy system, there will be problems. My average round in super automated maptool takes about 6-8 minutes real time, if all the players are paying attention that is. The new VT needs to be able to match that and, with all the manual alterations the DM will have to do at this point, slower rounds will be the norm.
To me, this comes across as a decent quick review of the VT.
But also, much of the good points listed, I would expect as a given for a product that requires a monthly subsription. EXAMPLE: Voice chat is great, and in this day and age, easy to have part of something like this. My tiny little web cam has a built in mic that is good enough to pick up the cat meowing in the kitchen, making me have to put her in the bedroom with the door shut when I'm video confrencing.
Which is saying, good quality voice chat technology isn't a strain anymore.
Have I accused anyone of lying? You don't have to lie to put a spin on something. Saying it's easier to log on then Maptools isn't a lie.
For me, reading your posts, it comes off to me as if the aggregate of the posts is really positive, but then you characterize it as negative. Logging on is, while recently mentioned, seldom mentioned in the beta forums. Most beta results seem really favorable, and it isn't about a single feature but about the whole package.
I showed my VTT to my home campaign group. These are all guys that used to subscribe to DDi and have dropped... who used to be hardcore LFR and have turned to other games... who haven't purchased Essentials. All of them were really impressed by the VTT. Several of them use other online tools, but they all saw this as really positive and a reason to consider DDi again. I see a lot of posts like that.
Yes, there are many things we want to fix. Characterizing the tool as negative, in my opinion, does not reflect how most beta testers are reacting.
I suppose that it is silly of me to mention that the VT is *still* in beta...right?
No, it's silly for you and others to come and say how great it is, when it's still in beta and try and sell us on it at this point. I don't expect it to be perfect. But I know when someone is putting a spin on things. Does the table have potential? Of course it does.
So when people are saying that it works great for them...they are then lying? There is *no* NDA for this. There have also been no shortage of reviews of it saying "it is good, but it has the potential to be so much better, if only they would add x, y, z".
You know what's even more annoying? When someone comes back with a rebutal like this.
Have I accused anyone of lying? You don't have to lie to put a spin on something.
So when the majority of people say that they enjoy using the vt, and that, while very feature-bare, it is easy to use is spin? SOmehow WotC has convinced *all* of the people in the beta to say the same thing?
But from everything you and others are saying, that potential doesn't seem to be what they are going for with it. And when pointed out, it all comes across as excuses or trying to justify.
Odd. I haven't been aware of any post by WotC indicating *where* they plan on going and what features that they plan on adding. The only indication that I have ever seen is WotC discussing the potential for integration of the tools. Could you point out to me the posts where WotC has indicated where WotC say that they are going with the vt?
If there isn't any NDA, then why doesn't WoTC come and give some more information and start answering some of all the questions about what features they are going to/want to have in it?
Can't have it both ways. Can't be all, we are open and talking and have eased off the no talking policy. Provided you don't ask any questions we haven't answered already.
It seems to me that you appear to be th one asking them to do both. First, you appear to want them to be able to switch and alter the tools that are up based on what people want. Yet you also want them to announce things that they may have planned for several years in advance. Despite those things possibly changing as a result of business plans, the mood of the community, etc...
So, with no NDA, how come so much about the VT and living up to it's potential is being left in the dark?
Because if WotC was posting about "how great the vt is", "how easy it is to use" it would just be described as corporate PR.
Ok, after a few hours with the new VT (just got my beta invite), here are some observations.
The good: 1. Simple to use, and would be simplier if I could import from the CB and MB, but I can't since my DDI account expired a few2 weeks ago. 2. Simple to put together basic maps using the supplied tiles. 3. I like the AoE drawing tool. Simple to use and effective. 4. Line of Sight tool is nive to have. 5. Integrated voice chat = awesome! 6. Die rolling is simple. 7. Like the voice changing options. 8. Can easily make multiple maps and switch between them. 9. Simple to use seems to be the underlying theme, which is a good thing. As long as they keep that in mind, this will be a useful tool.
The bad: 1. Need the ability ti flip tiles as well as rotate. 2. Needs to have some kind of good wall tiles. Too many doors, no walls. 3. Needs to have a vastly larger set of tiles to draw from. We need to make outdoor areas, city areas...I know it's Dungeons and Dragons, but we go outside every so often too. 4. Die rolling can be tedius. Select the d20, roll to attack, unselect the d20, select the d10, roll to damage, unselect the d10, reselect the d20 to make a perception roll. Etc, etc... 5. No way to set states, as far as I can tell. 6. Can only apply bloodied and marked status on monster nor PC tokens. Nothing for dazed, prone, ongoing damage, nothing. You can only type in extra statuses. 7. No way to undo a drawing. I.E. No CTRL-Z function. 8. In order to edit a token, you have to select it, click edit, change something (like hitpoints and statuses) then save it. Very cumbersome after the automation lovliness of Maptool. 9. No vision blocking. Once you reveal a portion of the map, it's revealed. Your monster can run behind the bookcase to hide, but everyone can still see where he is. 10. No way to select and move multiple tokens. Have to drag/drop each one individually. 11. The "name" tool doesn't seem to do anything at all. 12. Map area is pretty big, but will not be big enough for some of the epic maps like Temple of Elemental Evil or the Undermountain and there is no way to adjust the map size. 13. Complete lack of automation. Everything is manual, which will over burden the DM and slow down gameplay. If the new VT can't speed up an already slow, encounter heavy system, there will be problems. My average round in super automated maptool takes about 6-8 minutes real time, if all the players are paying attention that is. The new VT needs to be able to match that and, with all the manual alterations the DM will have to do at this point, slower rounds will be the norm.
To me, this comes across as a decent quick review of the VT.
But also, much of the good points listed, I would expect as a given for a product that requires a monthly subsription. EXAMPLE: Voice chat is great, and in this day and age, easy to have part of something like this. My tiny little web cam has a built in mic that is good enough to pick up the cat meowing in the kitchen, making me have to put her in the bedroom with the door shut when I'm video confrencing.
Which is saying, good quality voice chat technology isn't a strain anymore.
I'm going to nit-pick a couple of the bad points. 1. You can rotate tiles, including flipping them 180 from their starting points. It was slightly less than intuitive to do so, because you select the tile first then rotate it, rather than rotating before setting down IIRC.
3. This is purely opinion, but I assume the tile selection is due to beta. I would assume that all official D&D tiles would be included, as well as maps from other sources.
12. You can zoom in and out on the map to show more/less area.
Mud, you pointed it out the main issue I have with it yourself:
There have also been no shortage of reviews of it saying "it is good, but it has the potential to be so much better, if only they would add x, y, z"
And when people come and question about x, y and z, you and others have responded: "Does it really need that?" or "I know Maptools has those, but does the VT have to compete with MapTools?" or "Yeah it's missing alot, but at least it's easy to log onto."
I'm not questioning that people thought it worked or enjoyed using it. I'm sure that a lot of their fun came out of playing a good game, rather then the VT making it a good game. A good session with bottle caps and one set of dice where everyone had fun is just as valid.
I haven't suggested it's a broken piece of software either. I'm saying it sounds like they put out a very basic VT. It's going to take more then a very basic VT.
And I never said anything about how WoTC should do it's own posting how great the VT is. You either miss understood the question, or are attempting to change the subject.
I said if there isn't any NDA, then how come WoTC doesn't answer questions people have about features for the VT, and if we are going to get other tools? They can't even tell us if the VT is going to be part of DDi.
And I have no idea what you are getting at with this:
It seems to me that you appear to be th one asking them to do both. First, you appear to want them to be able to switch and alter the tools that are up based on what people want. Yet you also want them to announce things that they may have planned for several years in advance. Despite those things possibly changing as a result of business plans, the mood of the community, etc...
Of course it's basic. It's also currently in beta. There is a Feature Suggestion forum in the beta section, so there is a desire from Wizards and players alike that it will evolve to something more than just a basic table. Currently, there is nothing to really complain about with a beta piece of software, unless you try really hard to find something to complain about. Otherwise, if you wish to be constructive, you deal with it in bug reports and feature suggestions.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Mud, you pointed it out the main issue I have with it yourself:
There have also been no shortage of reviews of it saying "it is good, but it has the potential to be so much better, if only they would add x, y, z"
And when people come and question about x, y and z, you and others have responded: "Does it really need that?" or "I know Maptools has those, but does the VT have to compete with MapTools?" or "Yeah it's missing alot, but at least it's easy to log onto."
Some people think that the vt is great as is. Others think that it isn't. I don't see the problem. The only time I have said something in the vein of "does it really need those" is in asking whether the vt should attempt to do like maptool, only better, or whether it should try to find its own space in the market. MapTool is great. The scripting tools and macro language is very, very powerful, as evidenced by the various frameworks. However, I question whether WotC needs to make a vt that has as extensive and powerful a scripting language as MapTool. (Note, that is just my opinion). I think that WotC could get away with a fairly basic scripting language, as long as seamless integration with the CB and MB is present.
I'm not questioning that people thought it worked or enjoyed using it. I'm sure that a lot of their fun came out of playing a good game, rather then the VT making it a good game. A good session with bottle caps and one set of dice where everyone had fun is just as valid.
I haven't suggested it's a broken piece of software either. I'm saying it sounds like they put out a very basic VT. It's going to take more then a very basic VT.
Make no mistake, it is not ready for release with the extremely limited feature set that they have in it. But, it has lots of potential. (Take a drink if you are playing along at home.)
And I never said anything about how WoTC should do it's own posting how great the VT is. You either miss understood the question, or are attempting to change the subject.
I misunderstood. It seemed to me like you were asking why we aren't seeiing WotC posting their opinion on the vt. My apologies.
I said if there isn't any NDA, then how come WoTC doesn't answer questions people have about features for the VT, and if we are going to get other tools?
Because they (appear to be) doing what many, many, many people have asked them to do and are figuring out where they are going to go with the vt through allowing the community to use it and determine the features that they (the community) want.
And I have no idea what you are getting at with this:
It seems to me that you appear to be th one asking them to do both. First, you appear to want them to be able to switch and alter the tools that are up based on what people want. Yet you also want them to announce things that they may have planned for several years in advance. Despite those things possibly changing as a result of business plans, the mood of the community, etc...
Let me rephrase it and see if it makes sense.
There are a lot of people who have clamoured that WotC should be interacting with the community and figuring out what the community wants. So they are now doing this with the vt. Yet we now have people clamouring that WotC is doing it wrong by beta'ing a vt that doesn't have every single feature of every single vt out there. In addition, we have people who are saying that WotC should say what the other slots in the AT splash screen are for, despite the very real possibility that between now and when those buttons get filled, there may be several changes in what that particular tool is.
I looked at it for a few minutes just now. Barinax identified most of the things I was looking at, too. I'll set aside automation - it does none, while the other VTs out there offer pretty extensive options, so it seems pointless to discuss it. The only thing that I think they should have had built in from the get-go was the ability to put "1d20+STR" in the roll field for a power (or the damage field, whatever). That, at least, would make updating a character simpler.
But then, if it ever integrates, you never have to manually update (one would hope it queries the CB and updates your character for you). No real point to discussing that, either, unless it happens.
Anyway, all that aside, things I don't think Barinax mentioned.
Good: 1. It's pretty obvious what buttons do what, which is always a plus. 2. Start Map Here is a great idea. 3. Since characters are just XML files, converting CB characters to VT characters should be a simple process. An enterprising soul familiar with such things - like, say, Blakey - could do it right now.
Bad: 1. The interface look and feel is...well, it's got a D&D vibe going on, but it's sorta...primitive looking. I would have preferred something more like the essentials books - subtle colors and designs. It also eats up a lot of space; the dialogs are big and sort of "loud." 2. No "show me what my players are seeing" option. Maybe not necessary if they don't expand vision/fog beyond what they have now; however, I like the ability to say "hey, what can my players see? Oh, they shouldn't see that, I better cover it" 3. Free rotation of images (or, none that I found). Is that there? I want a statue at 45 degrees; I didn't see any way to do so. 4. Lots of mouse-clicking all over the place to make things work (like dice rolling, editing anything, etc). Things required a bunch of activity. Not really avoidable in these kind of tools, though some things (like selecting a token image) should respond to double clicks, or let me drag the token out of the box. 5. I do not like token dragging; the red "footprint" square for the token jumping around is annoying as hell. Nothing wrong with the movement itself (very smooth), but I'd shitcan the red footprint and maybe use a path line or a glow outline or something. 6. No right-click menu for things like Bloodied, or Marked. That should be there; toggles in the right-click menu are quite handy.
Overall: It has a feature set adequate for use as a virtual tabletop program. I could run a game with this. Some of the little things are very nice (Start Map Here, for example). I did not get to try out the voice stuff, but I do think that is pretty cool (the voice font thing is a nifty idea).
