I did not see mention of the monster builder in the 6/21 update announcement. Has anyone seen or heard anything about updating it?
I am still using the old one but the longer I do the more the bugs that were introduced annoy me. I use this tool a lot and I tire of waiting.
Has anyone seen or heard anything about updating it?
I think them renaming it "Monster Catalog" is a pretty clear indication of how much functionality they actually intend to add. Having a real functional Monster Builder would impair their ability to charge DMs microtransaction fees for using certain monsters in the VTT. And yes, this is what is happening.
Has anyone seen or heard anything about updating it?
I think them renaming it "Monster Catalog" is a pretty clear indication of how much functionality they actually intend to add. Having a real functional Monster Builder would impair their ability to charge DMs microtransaction fees for using certain monsters in the VTT. And yes, this is what is happening.
WoTC never made any such claim officially.
We don't even know what the microtransaction will be for exactly, this if there is even one. The only thing we tested these for was with Temporary Pass to Join Tables so far.
Knowing that you can CREATE and EDIT Monsters all you want on the VT, i find this statement rather unlikely, and pretty useless.
The renaming is discouraging.
Implementing micro transactions for the VT, absolutely, but for monsters? That’s a huge leap. Also it is probably a discussion for a different thread.
The current adventure tools needs fixing to function as “catalog” for the VT as it changes some monster damage. Even just a fix for that would help when importing, which seems to be the only reason to use the current tool.
But yeah, i still want the Monster Builder to do more...
WoTC never made any such claim officially.
Of course not.
We don't even know what the microtransaction will be for exactly, this if there is even one. The only thing we tested these for was with Temporary Pass to Join Tables so far.
There's more to it than what you've tested. At very least, there are certain dungeon tiles locked behind a paywall, but users don't see that interface yet.
WoTC never made any such claim officially.
Of course not.We don't even know what the microtransaction will be for exactly, this if there is even one. The only thing we tested these for was with Temporary Pass to Join Tables so far.
There's more to it than what you've tested. At very least, there are certain dungeon tiles locked behind a paywall, but users don't see that interface yet.
Damon Tor, you've been pretty straight forward in your posts, so I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt as to how you came by this information. I'm guessing NDA?
Anyway, WotC needs to have the "online version" as least equal in functionality to the offline version or proverbial heads will roll and this site will be in virtual flames from the masses posting.
`Teo
There's more to it than what you've tested. At very least, there are certain dungeon tiles locked behind a paywall, but users don't see that interface yet.
Yeah i'd like to know too...Is it personal opinions, like thoudands of people have, or you know something that we don't and that you're probably not supposed to dispense...
There is no Dungeon Tiles locked behind a paywall yet since there's no Paywall yet. Nothing is official as to what microtransaction will there be if there is one. I believe some form of microtransanction will allow people to buy more than the standards VT offers but no one knows yet what it is exactly and if there will be even one, for the simple reasons that WoTC didn't claim anything on this yet.
So, how you came by this information ? If not, then please stop passing your opinions for facts and just state they are opinions. Nothing wrong in that.
Hell if i could buy more Tiles i'd do right now bro AMEX in hand ready to bust !
I'm guessing NDA?
Not exactly. Code of Conduct Section 4.
The same way we learned that they lied when they said Dark Sun wasn't added to the CBC because it was too hard to do so (they had already added it, then disabled it) is how we know what's coming with the VT.
I'm guessing NDA?
Not exactly. Code of Conduct Section 4.
The same way we learned that they lied when they said Dark Sun wasn't added to the CBC because it was too hard to do so (they had already added it, then disabled it) is how we know what's coming with the VT.
ROTFLOk so when asked to back up your statement as to where it is said the Monster Builder will never have the Customization features it is said it will get and the Tiles set locked behind a Paywall, you refer to the CoC ?
Thanks for the laught.
It's still nothing more than speculation. If what you say is true, then those types of things could be in place so non-DDI subscribers can purchase content.
That's possible, yes. I find it unlikely, but it is possible.
Ok so when asked to back up your statement as to where it is said the Monster Builder will never have the Customization features it is said it will get and the Tiles set locked behind a Paywall, you refer to the CoC ?
Code of conduct section four is the bit we that says we can't discuss illegal activities. It means I can't discuss the matter any further, and yeah, it also means I can't back up any of this. So... I'll guess we'll see what happens in a few months, yeah? Hell, maybe they'll suprise us, and those tiles will be unlocked when you host your 50th game or something.
It's still nothing more than speculation. If what you say is true, then those types of things could be in place so non-DDI subscribers can purchase content.
That's possible, yes. I find it unlikely, but it is possible.
Of course you find it unlikely, otherwise you would have initially presented people other possible reasons for its existence in the code. It is also very possible that it was a design decision early on, but has since changed, and the code was simply not removed. It could be a remnant of the original game engine itself, that Wizards has nothing to do with at all. But you probably find those things unlikely, too. I am pretty sure that we could have figured out what you do find likely whether you hacked the program or not.
I am fairly certain that you can check out the source code of the majority of semi-complex programs out there and find all sorts of crazy things commented out, or in unused classes, and so on.
So, again, your statement of
charge DMs microtransaction fees for using certain monsters in the VTT. And yes, this is what is happening.
is nothing more than speculation and guesswork on your part.
So, again, your statement ofcharge DMs microtransaction fees for using certain monsters in the VTT. And yes, this is what is happening.
is nothing more than speculation and guesswork on your part.
We'll see.
I've been wrong before.
I did not see mention of the monster builder in the 6/21 update announcement. Has anyone seen or heard anything about updating it?
I am still using the old one but the longer I do the more the bugs that were introduced annoy me. I use this tool a lot and I tire of waiting.
The monsters have been updated, tried searching for monsters from Dungeon 189 and they were there.
Not sure about fixes, though.
I'll forgo the discussion of the offline MB since that's going the way of the dinosaur, but as far as the new one goes, not only would I like to see the customization options the old one had, which hopefully will be coming sooner rather than later, but I have another request. What I'd like to see is to by default have none of the old pre MM3 monsters updated to the new damage, etc. values, but have it set up so that if I DO customize a monster by working the level slider, only THEN have the damage values, etc. update to the new values. Or perhaps a checkbox to optionally use the new values. I'd also like to see it be able to update (increase) minion damage or ongoing damage entries, but I have no idea what guidelines WoTC uses for those.
Updating all the damage, defenses, to hit, init, etc. can be really painful. Of course the only way I can do this now is with the offline version, and this has its own bugs (triggers, particularly). I'm a big fan of the increased damage from monsters post MM3.
So essentially what I'm saying is say you have an old MM1 monster. You decide to modify it and then you would have an option to use the old values (modified using the old assay) or the new ones (with the new assay) instead of being forced to manually update the damage while sitting there referring to a pdf or printout of the DMG2 eratta. Of course you should have the ability to fill in any damage you want, too.
What do people think of this idea? I'm sure it's been brought up before. Also, can anyone from WoTC comment on how customizing monsters is planned to work in the new MB when it is "finished?"
Speaking of quotes, here's one from the back of the DMG2,
"... Whether you're a player, a DM - or both - D&DI will help you spend less timeprepping for your game and more time playing it"
back in the days of the offline CB and MB this was true for the most part. We got new content updates on a monthly basis for the CB and almost once every 2 months for the MB.
Now? I spend more time messing with the MB and CC to get what i need for my games. In other words, I spend more time, not less. Can I do it myself? Of course? Do I want to? No, I have a father - in - law on Dialisis, a four year old, a family, and a job. Should I have to? No, that's why i'm paying DDI to do it. Thing is, they aren't doing it, I am, so why should they get paid?
~Teo
I find the current tools still save me a ton of time. They do so compared to previous editions of the game as well (example: using HeroForge in 3E). The tools can be better, but they are still very useful for me.
Indeed. CB and Compendium save tons of time for me. I just wish the MB would work a lot better. Right now when it comes to customizing existing monsters I just give up, print the monster out and scratch out numbers while looking at the DMG eratta. Not the best, and I'm really hoping it gets some love soon.
I wish someone could figure out a way to take a compendium entry via an API and turn it into a .monster file.
I would have to agree. The absolute silence on the issue leaves little hope.
So....a lack of comments from WotC about anything just means that there won't be anything in the next 30 days. Speculating past that (while possibly fun) is useless, not to mention a waste of time.
All communication for the last 6 months has been very consistant. And by consistant I mean that information about anything beyond next month just doesn't exist. I'll take this opportunity to mention someone ....Dane....who was posting every few days his comments demanding to know "what the plan is". Finally someone from WotC came into his thread and basically said (just as I've tried to tell him for the last 6 months) (paraphrased) - "we're sorry you're unhappy with the total lack on information about anything beyond next month, but that's the way it is and that's the way it's going to stay".
So....a lack of comments from WotC about anything just means that there won't be anything in the next 30 days. Speculating past that (while possibly fun) is useless, not to mention a waste of time.
Do You Dislike That Fact?
All communication for the last 6 months has been very consistant. And by consistant I mean that information about anything beyond next month just doesn't exist. I'll take this opportunity to mention someone ....Dane....who was posting every few days his comments demanding to know "what the plan is". Finally someone from WotC came into his thread and basically said (just as I've tried to tell him for the last 6 months) (paraphrased) - "we're sorry you're unhappy with the total lack on information about anything beyond next month, but that's the way it is and that's the way it's going to stay".
So....a lack of comments from WotC about anything just means that there won't be anything in the next 30 days. Speculating past that (while possibly fun) is useless, not to mention a waste of time.
Do You Dislike That Fact?
Without answering the question I'm intersted what you think my opinion is based on my post.
Do You Dislike That Fact?
Without answering the question I'm intersted what you think my opinion is based on my post.
Why make a simple question complicated? Answer or don't, but there's no reason to bait the man.
They should at least tell us, why they do not intend to support it.
In short, because people will give them their money whether they do or do not.
Do You Dislike That Fact?
Without answering the question I'm intersted what you think my opinion is based on my post.
Why make a simple question complicated? Answer or don't, but there's no reason to bait the man.
Huh? Baiting? How do you arrive at that? My intent was to present the information in as unbiased a fashion as possible and keep my own personal opinion out of it. If I then GIVE my opinion it's no longer unbiased. Also the only way to find out how unbiased you were in presenting something is to ask someone.
Huh? Baiting? How do you arrive at that?
It's the internet. One could easily translate your post into "I'm not going to tell you. Why don't you tell me what you think my opinion is so I can tell you if you're right or wrong." Especially since he was asking a very simple question.
My intent was to present the information in as unbiased a fashion as possible and keep my own personal opinion out of it. If I then GIVE my opinion it's no longer unbiased.
Bottom line is that he ASKED you for your opinion after your comment, therefore it's already obvious that he could not glean your opinion from what you originally posted.
Also the only way to find out how unbiased you were in presenting something is to ask someone.
PM maybe?
Huh? Baiting? How do you arrive at that?
It's the internet. One could easily translate your post into "I'm not going to tell you. Why don't you tell me what you think my opinion is so I can tell you if you're right or wrong." Especially since he was asking a very simple question.My intent was to present the information in as unbiased a fashion as possible and keep my own personal opinion out of it. If I then GIVE my opinion it's no longer unbiased.
Bottom line is that he ASKED you for your opinion after your comment, therefore it's already obvious that he could not glean your opinion from what you originally posted.Also the only way to find out how unbiased you were in presenting something is to ask someone.
PM maybe?
Thank You Jharii
Thank You Jharii
If it bothered me I wouldn't be a subscriber. Better from their standpoint to have customers raging about no information, than customers raging about what they said and then have the chance that something happens and they don't follow through on time with something.