The only reason I'm comfortable saying even that much is because of the burn I took when mudbunny and I starting posting that we expected good news "next week" some time ago. That news got pushed back, admittedly, but this isn't just something they decided to do last week.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Well now you got some of the haters boxed into a corner, huh. Well played sir, well played.
Of course, that's assuming it is "a VERY solid and functional gametable " as of now.
I can assure you (though I can't go into detail due to my NDA) that this has been planned for some time.
The only reason I'm comfortable saying even that much is because of the burn I took when mudbunny and I starting posting that we expected good news "next week" some time ago. That news got pushed back, admittedly, but this isn't just something they decided to do last week.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Is that why it took three tries to get it running on GNU / Linux?
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Cute Strawman; nobody's saying that. The timeing of the announcement is suspect, not the stage of development.
Considering the amount of evidence in support, do you blame them?
I know right? We just keep giving them our money. What ****es we must be, right?
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Cute Strawman; nobody's saying that. The timeing of the announcement is suspect, not the stage of development.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Is that why it took three tries to get it running on GNU / Linux?
No, that was just AsmodeusLore trying 3 times on HIS Linux
Good stuff that it works on all these platforms though. Not that I use anything but win 7. So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
Cynicism is pretty much a requirement to be a intelligent consumer in these days of managed messages and targetted marketing.
Additionally, rapidly following up a controversial move with something that will be generally well-received is a time-honoured PR technique.
I'm not going to say that the VTT was held back to provide good news following the controversy of moving the CB to a web application, but I will say that I bet that various senior managers were very happy to be able to make that announcement at this time.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
I think the main argument is, that announcing a VTT shortly after the rather bad introduction of the online CB, might help to calm the mood a bit. There for it is only fair to ask: "Was this announcement something unrelated, or was the date influenced by the CB release and is in some degree an attempt to distract the user?"
I guess the main reason people think those two are related, is the fact, that the VTT announcement cam literally out of the blue. No weeks of "there is yet another tool to come", or "we are planing something you will love to use".
It was more like a loud *BAM*, you turn your head to, to see what is distracting you.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
I think the main argument is, that announcing a VTT shortly after the rather bad introduction of the online CB, might help to calm the mood a bit. There for it is only fair to ask: "Was this announcement something unrelated, or was the date influenced by the CB release and is in some degree an attempt to distract the user?"
I guess the main reason people think those two are related, is the fact, that the VTT announcement cam literally out of the blue. No weeks of "there is yet another tool to come", or "we are planing something you will love to use".
It was more like a loud *BAM*, you turn your head to, to see what is distracting you.
I would normally chalk this up to bad (good?) timing and not an attempt at spin. Recend revelations regarding the old CB's "Essentials/Dark Sun difficulty" have rather worn out whatever benefot of the doubt WotC might have gotten from me.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
I think we can be forgiven for a bit of cynicism given the recent state of affairs.
It does seem pretty likely that Wizards timed this to coincide with the release of the oCB. As Tibis said, releasing something that you're pretty sure will go over well alongside something that you're pretty sure will be controversial is just good PR.
But, if it is, so what? I can't begrudge Wizards for trying to put a good spin on things. Heck, I kind of like it. It's a nice attempt at making it look like they can actually follow through on their "more updates, faster updates" scheme that they've been talking about.
Ultimately the VTT or VRT or VCR or whatever they're calling it is a seperate product. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt until I play with it. My opinion of it won't change my opinion of the Character Builder, and my opinion of the CB won't color my opinion of the VTT.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
It's not almost done, unless they really want their VT to be the most feature free table on the market.
From the reports it does virtually no calculation, it doesn't have fog of war (even free ones manage this) or line of sight, it doesn't integrate with any of the other tools, which would be it's main selling point over other VT on the market.
Of COURSE they had to release the CB first. If you cant make characters then you cant use the VT.
What would you have wanted them to do, release the CB then sit around and have a VT ready to test but wait on it?
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
It's not almost done, unless they really want their VT to be the most feature free table on the market.
From the reports it does virtually no calculation, it doesn't have fog of war (even free ones manage this) or line of sight, it doesn't integrate with any of the other tools, which would be it's main selling point over other VT on the market.
We've always blamed them for not testing their software and now they are.
You guys need to stop to think for a second.
Of COURSE they had to release the CB first. If you cant make characters then you cant use the VT.
What would you have wanted them to do, release the CB then sit around and have a VT ready to test but wait on it?
But you could make characters. You could make characters before the offline builder existed, just using the old pen & paper method.
This tabletop doesn't interact with the new character builder at all, so the existance or non-existance of the CB is irrelevant.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Cute Strawman; nobody's saying that. The timeing of the announcement is suspect, not the stage of development.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
More like realistic.
Who's more realistic, someone stuck in past failure or someone taking an objective, open-minded look at what they're actually doing?
How convenient that those are the only two options and how you describe them. Not very open minded, I must say.
Quite frankly, I've heard enough of the doom and gloom predictions. Really, it's getting old. I know you're mad. You have good reasons to be. I may disagree, but I don't disagree with your right to be mad/upset/disappointed with what wotc is doing. But posts that just crap on every single discussion about anything that they do with predictions of worst-case scenarios aren't productive. Maybe suggesting something that they could do differently, perhaps?
But maybe I should have as little hope for these kind of people that they do for Wizards.
Let people get it off their collective chest. Considering that Wizards hasn't even acknowledged the state of the CB (not just beg reports), I can't blame anyone for whatever stance they have at the moment.
If you're tired of them, why even go into a thread that is obviously intended with that exact purpose??
Because it's not just threads with an obviously intented purpose. The haters invade every thread on this board. Every single one. They can't say enough about how much WotC sucks. And I have to agree with Mand here, that it's getting old. Either WotC will improve it's standing with you, or it won't. Continuing to complain about everything they do, doesn't seem productive at all. I've tried to emphasize my point of view (wait and see or stop giving them money). But many posters seem intent on reiterating their same hate for WotC over and over and over again. And they do it at every possible opportunity.
Let people get it off their collective chest. Considering that Wizards hasn't even acknowledged the state of the CB (not just beg reports), I can't blame anyone for whatever stance they have at the moment.
Perhaps the problem is WotC's rate of product releases. How about they stop everything for about 3 months? That would give everyone time to get 'it' off their collective chest.
Everyone needs to lighten up a bit, on both sides of the discussion. When it's all said and done, we're still talking about a game here.
I don't think it's bad behavior to ask people to be more constructive with their negative feedback.
Like I said, "not that anyone is exhibiting bad behavior."
But making one side out to look like they are wearing horns while making the other side out to look like they are wearing halos isn't exactly constructive, either. Both sides are guilty of it. That's all I'm saying.
Kumbaya!
Cynical indeed.
The last two months or so of my subscription didn't get any updates or good info as to why. The only explanation I got was that it was taking longer than they expected to implement Essentials and Dark Sun. Nobody mentioned rebuilding the Character Builder, much less a Virtual Tabletop.
In fact, in your own post, you didn't mention it either:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Color me cynical.
(I'm guessing it's some shade of orange
)I like orange.
Those of us under NDAs aren't going to say what we do know, so you can imagine how tough it is on us to see all this negativity flying around when we KNOW what's comining but can't say anything.
Maybe they need to open up their collective ears a bit more and listen to the community.
Those of us under NDAs aren't going to say what we do know, so you can imagine how tough it is on us to see all this negativity flying around when we KNOW what's comining but can't say anything.
Someone needs to say something. The flame wars are beyond excessive. I can't even lurk the forums in peace. Every thread I read to try to gain information from erupts into insults a couple of pages in. Such a sad state of affairs for a game that is supposed to be built upon social relationships and communication.
So does this need for an NDA-free rank outsider to speculate that "the offline CB could never support the VTT that WotC had been advertizing since the first print-runs of the core rulebooks," so... "they had to take a hit, preferring to be seen as commercially exploitative than incompetent"...?
And is the VTT going to offer 3D views like the back of the first 4e rulebooks showed?
Cheers,
--Os.
I like orange.
Those of us under NDAs aren't going to say what we do know, so you can imagine how tough it is on us to see all this negativity flying around when we KNOW what's comining but can't say anything.
Actually Webster this is something WotC can and should do something about. Right now.
Why do you know what's coming and we don't? What on earth do Wizards think they are gaining from this stance? As a very positive DDi supporter since day 1 up to and including to right now, this is the one thing I hate about DDi - that we know nothing. I just see zero reasons for it. Absolutely zero. And it's frustrating as hell.
Blakey
So does this need for an NDA-free rank outsider to speculate that "the offline CB could never support the VTT that WotC had been advertizing since the first print-runs of the core rulebooks," so... "they had to take a hit, preferring to be seen as commercially exploitative than incompetent"...?
Thing is, that cannot be true. Follow this through:
- It is possible to 'import' a character made with the 'old', offline CB into the "cloud" database using a routine built into the new CB.
- Let's assume that the new, online CB can support the advertised VTT.
- Ergo, you could make a character with the offline CB, upload it to the cloud and, bingo, you would have the offline CB supporting the VTT.
Who's more realistic, someone stuck in past failure or someone taking an objective, open-minded look at what they're actually doing?
The boards are a CURRENT failure as they continue to avoid bug-fixes and upgrades. Check out my companies forums:
Dark Spire
I set it up in 15 minutes. It works 10x better than these "beta" boards...
If you're tired of them, why even go into a thread that is obviously intended with that exact purpose??
Because it's not just threads with an obviously intented purpose. The haters invade every thread on this board. Every single one. They can't say enough about how much WotC sucks. And I have to agree with Mand here, that it's getting old. Either WotC will improve it's standing with you, or it won't. Continuing to complain about everything they do, doesn't seem productive at all. I've tried to emphasize my point of view (wait and see or stop giving them money). But many posters seem intent on reiterating their same hate for WotC over and over and over again. And they do it at every possible opportunity.Let people get it off their collective chest. Considering that Wizards hasn't even acknowledged the state of the CB (not just beg reports), I can't blame anyone for whatever stance they have at the moment.
Perhaps the problem is WotC's rate of product releases. How about they stop everything for about 3 months? That would give everyone time to get 'it' off their collective chest.
I'd be all for that, if it would improve their communication and products quality...
Perhaps the problem is WotC's rate of product releases. How about they stop everything for about 3 months? That would give everyone time to get 'it' off their collective chest.
I agree. Wizards is attempting to succeed with a difficult business model, one which relies on selling a great deal of fresh content every month. I realize that they want to stay in peoples' minds, but dammit, they have diluted the D&D brand name and have not given enough air for sidetracks like Dark Sun to grow and flourish. Even OCD/collector types like me said ****it this year because there's just too many damned books. And after the release of a pretty good PHB and DMG, they reinvent the system 2 years later as manga-sized paperbacks? It sure looks like a ploy for more $$$ even though I like some of the simplification they've tried to encourage newcomers to join the system.
I could live with quarterly releases of new products; it takes a while for a campaign to progress anyway. I prefer hardbound books because D&D is a game that can last for years, decades. How about instead of making 4-5 powers books every year, they release an annual version? I can understand putting out a new monster manual every year. But then update the PHB and DMG on a yearly basis to fix the errata. Certainly couldn't be any more confusing than the back-and-forth they've done with Magic Missile. For $40, give us a book as thick as your previous releases; fewer than 150 pages is a sign that maybe there's just not enough content to warrant a hardback.
Please make a note of section 4. Do not discuss or promote any illegal activity, including copyright violation and hacking.
Thanks.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Cute Strawman; nobody's saying that. The timeing of the announcement is suspect, not the stage of development.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
I doubt the announcement was planned to "distract" anybody. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the development of the new character builder and the virtual table are somehow linked, either directly or indirectly. For instance, if the tabletop is being developed to support integration with the character builder, that might influence how far along the tabletop is and when the tabletop beta starts. So the timing could be coincidence or it could be that somehow the two development cycles are a bit in sync.
As far as how this will impact my D&D group, the answer will probably depend on how well the DDi table is integrated with the compendium and character builder. Currently we play using Maptool on a flat screen TV which works very well and is free. The DM periodically subscribes to DDI but isn't currently subscribed since he's gotten all he needs from the Compendium for now. If the new DDi table is just another version of Maptool without any integration with the rest of DDi then we'd have no incentive to switch from using Maptool. On the other hand if we can, for instance, import character stats from the character generator and/or monster stats from the Compendium and use the DDi table to track hit points that would be a nice selling point and my DM would probably reconsider keeping a constant subscription going.
For me personally as a player the new table doesn't affect whether or not I'd resubscribe. I'm not playing in any online groups and I'm not DMing so I don't need access to the table at home. At the moment it's looking like I won't bother resubscribing unless I start DMing again.
On the other hand if we can, for instance, import character stats from the character generator and/or monster stats from the Compendium
I'm pretty sure that's what they plan on doing.
Eventually....
use the DDi table to track hit points that would be a nice selling point and my DM would probably reconsider keeping a constant subscription going.
WoTC_Trevor seemed to say this wasn't planned for, however, it's been an often requested feature, and they have taken note of it.
Weather anything will come from it, or when it will happen, remains to be seen.
The only reason I'm comfortable saying even that much is because of the burn I took when mudbunny and I starting posting that we expected good news "next week" some time ago. That news got pushed back, admittedly, but this isn't just something they decided to do last week.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Well now you got some of the haters boxed into a corner, huh. Well played sir, well played.
Of course, that's assuming it is "a VERY solid and functional gametable " as of now.
I can assure you (though I can't go into detail due to my NDA) that this has been planned for some time.
The only reason I'm comfortable saying even that much is because of the burn I took when mudbunny and I starting posting that we expected good news "next week" some time ago. That news got pushed back, admittedly, but this isn't just something they decided to do last week.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Is that why it took three tries to get it running on GNU / Linux?
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Cute Strawman; nobody's saying that. The timeing of the announcement is suspect, not the stage of development.
Considering the amount of evidence in support, do you blame them?
I know right? We just keep giving them our money. What ****es we must be, right?
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Cute Strawman; nobody's saying that. The timeing of the announcement is suspect, not the stage of development.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Is that why it took three tries to get it running on GNU / Linux?
No, that was just AsmodeusLore trying 3 times on HIS Linux
Good stuff that it works on all these platforms though. Not that I use anything but win 7. So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
Cynicism is pretty much a requirement to be a intelligent consumer in these days of managed messages and targetted marketing.
Additionally, rapidly following up a controversial move with something that will be generally well-received is a time-honoured PR technique.
I'm not going to say that the VTT was held back to provide good news following the controversy of moving the CB to a web application, but I will say that I bet that various senior managers were very happy to be able to make that announcement at this time.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
I think the main argument is, that announcing a VTT shortly after the rather bad introduction of the online CB, might help to calm the mood a bit. There for it is only fair to ask: "Was this announcement something unrelated, or was the date influenced by the CB release and is in some degree an attempt to distract the user?"
I guess the main reason people think those two are related, is the fact, that the VTT announcement cam literally out of the blue. No weeks of "there is yet another tool to come", or "we are planing something you will love to use".
It was more like a loud *BAM*, you turn your head to, to see what is distracting you.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
I think the main argument is, that announcing a VTT shortly after the rather bad introduction of the online CB, might help to calm the mood a bit. There for it is only fair to ask: "Was this announcement something unrelated, or was the date influenced by the CB release and is in some degree an attempt to distract the user?"
I guess the main reason people think those two are related, is the fact, that the VTT announcement cam literally out of the blue. No weeks of "there is yet another tool to come", or "we are planing something you will love to use".
It was more like a loud *BAM*, you turn your head to, to see what is distracting you.
I would normally chalk this up to bad (good?) timing and not an attempt at spin. Recend revelations regarding the old CB's "Essentials/Dark Sun difficulty" have rather worn out whatever benefot of the doubt WotC might have gotten from me.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
I think we can be forgiven for a bit of cynicism given the recent state of affairs.
It does seem pretty likely that Wizards timed this to coincide with the release of the oCB. As Tibis said, releasing something that you're pretty sure will go over well alongside something that you're pretty sure will be controversial is just good PR.
But, if it is, so what? I can't begrudge Wizards for trying to put a good spin on things. Heck, I kind of like it. It's a nice attempt at making it look like they can actually follow through on their "more updates, faster updates" scheme that they've been talking about.
Ultimately the VTT or VRT or VCR or whatever they're calling it is a seperate product. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt until I play with it. My opinion of it won't change my opinion of the Character Builder, and my opinion of the CB won't color my opinion of the VTT.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
It's not almost done, unless they really want their VT to be the most feature free table on the market.
From the reports it does virtually no calculation, it doesn't have fog of war (even free ones manage this) or line of sight, it doesn't integrate with any of the other tools, which would be it's main selling point over other VT on the market.
Of COURSE they had to release the CB first. If you cant make characters then you cant use the VT.
What would you have wanted them to do, release the CB then sit around and have a VT ready to test but wait on it?
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
It's not almost done, unless they really want their VT to be the most feature free table on the market.
From the reports it does virtually no calculation, it doesn't have fog of war (even free ones manage this) or line of sight, it doesn't integrate with any of the other tools, which would be it's main selling point over other VT on the market.
We've always blamed them for not testing their software and now they are.
You guys need to stop to think for a second.
Of COURSE they had to release the CB first. If you cant make characters then you cant use the VT.
What would you have wanted them to do, release the CB then sit around and have a VT ready to test but wait on it?
But you could make characters. You could make characters before the offline builder existed, just using the old pen & paper method.
This tabletop doesn't interact with the new character builder at all, so the existance or non-existance of the CB is irrelevant.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Cute Strawman; nobody's saying that. The timeing of the announcement is suspect, not the stage of development.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
More like realistic.
Who's more realistic, someone stuck in past failure or someone taking an objective, open-minded look at what they're actually doing?
How convenient that those are the only two options and how you describe them. Not very open minded, I must say.
Quite frankly, I've heard enough of the doom and gloom predictions. Really, it's getting old. I know you're mad. You have good reasons to be. I may disagree, but I don't disagree with your right to be mad/upset/disappointed with what wotc is doing. But posts that just crap on every single discussion about anything that they do with predictions of worst-case scenarios aren't productive. Maybe suggesting something that they could do differently, perhaps?
But maybe I should have as little hope for these kind of people that they do for Wizards.
Let people get it off their collective chest. Considering that Wizards hasn't even acknowledged the state of the CB (not just beg reports), I can't blame anyone for whatever stance they have at the moment.
If you're tired of them, why even go into a thread that is obviously intended with that exact purpose??
Because it's not just threads with an obviously intented purpose. The haters invade every thread on this board. Every single one. They can't say enough about how much WotC sucks. And I have to agree with Mand here, that it's getting old. Either WotC will improve it's standing with you, or it won't. Continuing to complain about everything they do, doesn't seem productive at all. I've tried to emphasize my point of view (wait and see or stop giving them money). But many posters seem intent on reiterating their same hate for WotC over and over and over again. And they do it at every possible opportunity.
Let people get it off their collective chest. Considering that Wizards hasn't even acknowledged the state of the CB (not just beg reports), I can't blame anyone for whatever stance they have at the moment.
Perhaps the problem is WotC's rate of product releases. How about they stop everything for about 3 months? That would give everyone time to get 'it' off their collective chest.
Everyone needs to lighten up a bit, on both sides of the discussion. When it's all said and done, we're still talking about a game here.
I don't think it's bad behavior to ask people to be more constructive with their negative feedback.
Like I said, "not that anyone is exhibiting bad behavior."
But making one side out to look like they are wearing horns while making the other side out to look like they are wearing halos isn't exactly constructive, either. Both sides are guilty of it. That's all I'm saying.
Kumbaya!
Cynical indeed.
The last two months or so of my subscription didn't get any updates or good info as to why. The only explanation I got was that it was taking longer than they expected to implement Essentials and Dark Sun. Nobody mentioned rebuilding the Character Builder, much less a Virtual Tabletop.
In fact, in your own post, you didn't mention it either:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Color me cynical.
(I'm guessing it's some shade of orange
)I like orange.
Those of us under NDAs aren't going to say what we do know, so you can imagine how tough it is on us to see all this negativity flying around when we KNOW what's comining but can't say anything.
Maybe they need to open up their collective ears a bit more and listen to the community.
Those of us under NDAs aren't going to say what we do know, so you can imagine how tough it is on us to see all this negativity flying around when we KNOW what's comining but can't say anything.
Someone needs to say something. The flame wars are beyond excessive. I can't even lurk the forums in peace. Every thread I read to try to gain information from erupts into insults a couple of pages in. Such a sad state of affairs for a game that is supposed to be built upon social relationships and communication.
So does this need for an NDA-free rank outsider to speculate that "the offline CB could never support the VTT that WotC had been advertizing since the first print-runs of the core rulebooks," so... "they had to take a hit, preferring to be seen as commercially exploitative than incompetent"...?
And is the VTT going to offer 3D views like the back of the first 4e rulebooks showed?
Cheers,
--Os.
I like orange.
Those of us under NDAs aren't going to say what we do know, so you can imagine how tough it is on us to see all this negativity flying around when we KNOW what's comining but can't say anything.
Actually Webster this is something WotC can and should do something about. Right now.
Why do you know what's coming and we don't? What on earth do Wizards think they are gaining from this stance? As a very positive DDi supporter since day 1 up to and including to right now, this is the one thing I hate about DDi - that we know nothing. I just see zero reasons for it. Absolutely zero. And it's frustrating as hell.
Blakey
So does this need for an NDA-free rank outsider to speculate that "the offline CB could never support the VTT that WotC had been advertizing since the first print-runs of the core rulebooks," so... "they had to take a hit, preferring to be seen as commercially exploitative than incompetent"...?
Thing is, that cannot be true. Follow this through:
- It is possible to 'import' a character made with the 'old', offline CB into the "cloud" database using a routine built into the new CB.
- Let's assume that the new, online CB can support the advertised VTT.
- Ergo, you could make a character with the offline CB, upload it to the cloud and, bingo, you would have the offline CB supporting the VTT.
Who's more realistic, someone stuck in past failure or someone taking an objective, open-minded look at what they're actually doing?
The boards are a CURRENT failure as they continue to avoid bug-fixes and upgrades. Check out my companies forums:
Dark Spire
I set it up in 15 minutes. It works 10x better than these "beta" boards...
If you're tired of them, why even go into a thread that is obviously intended with that exact purpose??
Because it's not just threads with an obviously intented purpose. The haters invade every thread on this board. Every single one. They can't say enough about how much WotC sucks. And I have to agree with Mand here, that it's getting old. Either WotC will improve it's standing with you, or it won't. Continuing to complain about everything they do, doesn't seem productive at all. I've tried to emphasize my point of view (wait and see or stop giving them money). But many posters seem intent on reiterating their same hate for WotC over and over and over again. And they do it at every possible opportunity.Let people get it off their collective chest. Considering that Wizards hasn't even acknowledged the state of the CB (not just beg reports), I can't blame anyone for whatever stance they have at the moment.
Perhaps the problem is WotC's rate of product releases. How about they stop everything for about 3 months? That would give everyone time to get 'it' off their collective chest.
I'd be all for that, if it would improve their communication and products quality...
Perhaps the problem is WotC's rate of product releases. How about they stop everything for about 3 months? That would give everyone time to get 'it' off their collective chest.
I agree. Wizards is attempting to succeed with a difficult business model, one which relies on selling a great deal of fresh content every month. I realize that they want to stay in peoples' minds, but dammit, they have diluted the D&D brand name and have not given enough air for sidetracks like Dark Sun to grow and flourish. Even OCD/collector types like me said ****it this year because there's just too many damned books. And after the release of a pretty good PHB and DMG, they reinvent the system 2 years later as manga-sized paperbacks? It sure looks like a ploy for more $$$ even though I like some of the simplification they've tried to encourage newcomers to join the system.
I could live with quarterly releases of new products; it takes a while for a campaign to progress anyway. I prefer hardbound books because D&D is a game that can last for years, decades. How about instead of making 4-5 powers books every year, they release an annual version? I can understand putting out a new monster manual every year. But then update the PHB and DMG on a yearly basis to fix the errata. Certainly couldn't be any more confusing than the back-and-forth they've done with Magic Missile. For $40, give us a book as thick as your previous releases; fewer than 150 pages is a sign that maybe there's just not enough content to warrant a hardback.
Please make a note of section 4. Do not discuss or promote any illegal activity, including copyright violation and hacking.
Thanks.
Unless you want to give them credit for developing a VERY solid and functional gametable in the time between the CB being released and now.
Cute Strawman; nobody's saying that. The timeing of the announcement is suspect, not the stage of development.
So, the argument is that they sat on an almost done table (and it really is almost done, the couple bugs I've found are hinderances at best - no crashes (yet?) ) as insurance in case something else went wrong?
Cynical indeed.
I doubt the announcement was planned to "distract" anybody. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the development of the new character builder and the virtual table are somehow linked, either directly or indirectly. For instance, if the tabletop is being developed to support integration with the character builder, that might influence how far along the tabletop is and when the tabletop beta starts. So the timing could be coincidence or it could be that somehow the two development cycles are a bit in sync.
As far as how this will impact my D&D group, the answer will probably depend on how well the DDi table is integrated with the compendium and character builder. Currently we play using Maptool on a flat screen TV which works very well and is free. The DM periodically subscribes to DDI but isn't currently subscribed since he's gotten all he needs from the Compendium for now. If the new DDi table is just another version of Maptool without any integration with the rest of DDi then we'd have no incentive to switch from using Maptool. On the other hand if we can, for instance, import character stats from the character generator and/or monster stats from the Compendium and use the DDi table to track hit points that would be a nice selling point and my DM would probably reconsider keeping a constant subscription going.
For me personally as a player the new table doesn't affect whether or not I'd resubscribe. I'm not playing in any online groups and I'm not DMing so I don't need access to the table at home. At the moment it's looking like I won't bother resubscribing unless I start DMing again.
On the other hand if we can, for instance, import character stats from the character generator and/or monster stats from the Compendium
I'm pretty sure that's what they plan on doing.
Eventually....
use the DDi table to track hit points that would be a nice selling point and my DM would probably reconsider keeping a constant subscription going.
WoTC_Trevor seemed to say this wasn't planned for, however, it's been an often requested feature, and they have taken note of it.
Weather anything will come from it, or when it will happen, remains to be seen.