DDI Virtual Table Beta Tour and Future

mudbunny · Jan 26, 2012

ardoughter said:
I have played about with Maptools and am very impressed with it, that said I found it to have a steep learning curve and troubleshooting conection issues could be a bitch. I would be quite willing to use but the people I wanted to get to use it would not touch it after that one session.

*Nods*

Maptool is powerful, don't get me wrong. But, as Ardoughter mentioned, it has a rather steep learning curve. The VT comes with next-to-seamless integration with the CB and VT. To get the same level of integration with Maptool requires the installation of frameworks and other stuff. In addition, you would need to either type in or use a macro to parse the monster/character data and bring it into Maptool.

The DDI VT is designed for 4E, as I mentioned above. All of the stuff it uses and how it works is optimized for a group playing 4E. Maptool, by its very nature, cannot, out of the gate, be optimized for any game system. It is system-agnostic so that you can customize it for your individual system of choice. Can you get it to be hyper-optimized for 4E (or any other game system)? Yes, yes you can. But the amount of work and effort that is required to do so is significant as compared to the amount of work required to get the VT optimized for 4E. For some people, that minimal effort (that you would be doing anyways when the players create characters and the DM makes his map/chooses monsters) is worth a monthly subscription fee.

As I mentioned above, Maptool rocks, but they are designed for two very, very different purposes. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

Agamon · Jan 26, 2012

You get what you pay for with MapTools. It's powerful, yes, but with a price. There's something to be said for making a VT that is simple both in set up and use for both players and GM. After all, there's no learning curve to sitting down at a table.

Alarian · Jan 26, 2012

I've been using MapTool for quite a few years and really like the program. That said, and as others have said, connectivity problems can be a major pain in the butt with it. I've played with multiple groups and we've had more than one case where we simply never successfully were able to get some people to be able to connect. I've also had problems more than once where its worked flawlessly for months and then suddenly one day no one could connect to me anymore or I would be unable to connect to other servers. Nothing had changed on anyone's end (well not that we were aware of at least) but its lead to more than one evening of frustration as everyone tries to troubleshoot the problem PC or PC's. Thank god for Skype. We currently have a PBEM game going where maptool is left running for people to log on and check out the current situation during combats and we have several people that have never been able to successfully connect no matter what's been tried.

If the DDI VTT can only solve that one problem, I can see it being a valuable alternative. The 4th Edition only thing though is going to hurt, at least in the short run. Opening it up to everyone I think could open a large pool of people willing to pay for a subscription even if they used none of the other features of the subscription.

w_earle_wheeler · Jan 26, 2012

Dannager said:
Do you have any grounds for accusing the reviewer of shoddy reporting?

I don't know. Maybe reading the article?

Is positivity truly opposed by critical thought? Is the tone of the article so translucent that the smallest pinprick in it's skin will cause it to leak -- or -- Is one person's interpretation truly a symptom of global negativity?

If WotC had listened to the negative trolls (hey, remember that flash animation where the dragon poops on the troll who is sitting at the computer!) between 3.5 and 4.0, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now.

That's because those "negative" trolls weren't really trolls, they were fans. And they weren't really negative, they were critical.

mudbunny · Jan 27, 2012

w_earle_wheeler said:
I don't know. Maybe reading the article?

Is positivity truly opposed by critical thought? Is the tone of the article so translucent that the smallest pinprick in it's skin will cause it to leak -- or -- Is one person's interpretation truly a symptom of global negativity?

Or is it one person going into the article with a pre-determined point of view and finding things in there that support their point of view, whether or not they actually exist in the article or not?

When reading things and interpreting them, one must always be aware of our own biases and opinions and do our best to ensure that we do not let them have an undue influence on the interpretation of what is being read.

If WotC had listened to the negative trolls (hey, remember that flash animation where the dragon poops on the troll who is sitting at the computer!) between 3.5 and 4.0, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now.

That's because those "negative" trolls weren't really trolls, they were fans. And they weren't really negative, they were critical.

Can we not re-hash this argument again? It serves no purpose other than to put on display how fractured the community is towards some of the marketing that was put forth for 4E. No good discussion can come of it, only a chain of posts that we have all seen far, far too many times before.

mudbunny · Jan 27, 2012

Oh yeah, for those who were interested in info about different editions of D&D, here is one of the menus you get when you are creating a table:

Dannager · Jan 27, 2012

w_earle_wheeler said:
I don't know. Maybe reading the article?

We both read the same article. Most of us saw what was written. You saw something else. The question is why.

Is positivity truly opposed by critical thought? Is the tone of the article so translucent that the smallest pinprick in it's skin will cause it to leak -- or -- Is one person's interpretation truly a symptom of global negativity?

I wasn't asking you for a philosophical tirade. I was asking for your reasoning.

If WotC had listened to the negative trolls (hey, remember that flash animation where the dragon poops on the troll who is sitting at the computer!) between 3.5 and 4.0, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now.

That's because those "negative" trolls weren't really trolls, they were fans. And they weren't really negative, they were critical.

We are not getting into a discussion of those cartoons. This isn't the place for you to hash up ridiculous, dead-and-buried arguments.

If you had responded by saying, "Well, I tried out the VTT myself and thought that features X, Y, and Z were lacking compared to other options," I would have been more inclined to believe that your opinion of the VTT was coming from somewhere honest and legitimate. Instead, you responded with, "WotC are a bunch of meanie dumb-faces and just look at how they made fun of me three years ago!"

If posts like your participation in this thread are your idea of "critical, not negative," then I couldn't really fault WotC for wanting to dump on that sort of behavior anyway.

Umbran · Jan 27, 2012

Dannager said:
If you had responded by saying, "Well, I tried out the VTT myself and thought that features X, Y, and Z were lacking compared to other options," I would have been more inclined to believe that your opinion of the VTT was coming from somewhere honest and legitimate.

And, if you had responded by walking away rather than getting personal, I would have been more inclined to believe that you'd remember The Rules.

Remember them now. Don't get personal. Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster. Because, no matter how right you may think you are, it is fairly well documented that the Internet does not confer psychic powers like telepathy or mind-reading. Your chances of getting it right aren't so hot, and if you're wrong, you're being pretty darned rude.

So, as always, walk away, or report the post. But don't get in people's faces. This shouldn't be hard to understand. If it is, please take it to e-mail or PM with the moderator of your choice. Thanks.

w_earle_wheeler · Jan 27, 2012

mudbunny said:
When reading things and interpreting them, one must always be aware of our own biases and opinions and do our best to ensure that we do not let them have an undue influence on the interpretation of what is being read.

Hope is as much of a bias as skepticism!

mudbunny said:
Can we not re-hash this argument again? It serves no purpose other than to put on display how fractured the community is towards some of the marketing that was put forth for 4E. No good discussion can come of it, only a chain of posts that we have all seen far, far too many times before.

That argument was never buried. As a matter of fact, I think that argument is a crest of the flag of the Edition Wars. While I don't participate in them, it should be soundly obvious that they did really exist, and that since the annoucement of 5e, the previous "war" has a clear victor.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Or, in this case, re-roll a Spellscared Dragonborn Warlord and wait 4 years to fight the war.

mudbunny · Jan 27, 2012

w_earle_wheeler said:
Hope is as much of a bias as skepticism!

I never made any attempt to claim otherwise. I am very aware of my bias and leaning towards optimism and "glass-half-fullness" point of view towards things. I still don't see any indications that there was "shoddy reporting". The reviewer brings up some negative points and gives, in my mind, a very balanced review of the VT.

That argument was never buried. As a matter of fact, I think that argument is a crest of the flag of the Edition Wars. While I don't participate in them, it should be soundly obvious that they did really exist, and that since the annoucement of 5e, the previous "war" has a clear victor.

No one "wins" edition wars, and that is a fact. The only thing that comes out of edition wars is flames, arguments (as opposed to discussions) and a tone of discussion that serves *only* to drive others away from the game and the community.