D&D 5E D&D Beyond Announces Combat Tracker

"We're happy to announce the Alpha release of the Combat Tracker tool to subscribers of D&D Beyond! Try it out in your D&D games and your feedback will be used to make this the best it can be!"

D&D Beyond has just announced the alpha development version of a combat tracker. You can track monsters, initiative, and access quick reference information. This functionality is similar to that offered by Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds.

You can read more about the combat tracker here. The Alpha version is available to DDB subscribers.

"We have been using the Combat Tracker in our home games for a few weeks, and although it is certainly not in a finished state yet, we experienced enough value that we have decided to go ahead and release it now - even in its unfinished state - to both 1) let subscribers gain some of that value and 2) get feedback as early as possible.

Please keep in mind that this is not a finished product, and we invite subscribers to help us make it the best it can be!

Who can use the Combat Tracker?

All D&D Beyond Subscribers. The Combat Tracker is in full active development right now. We will be allowing early access to NEW Combat Tracker features to our Subscribers first, to prove out concepts and new functionality. We took the same approach with the Alpha version of the Encounter Builder with much success. This delivery method allows us to digest feedback in bite sized chunks and perform testing to figure out the best user experience possible.

What is a Development Alpha?

The Development Alpha of the Combat Tracker allows us to test features and user experience.

• Functional but expecting a lot of bugs
  • Should be no core functionality bugs
• Core functionality could change with feedback
• Functionality could appear or disappear at any time

We will be working on validating bug reports and cleaning up the Combat Tracker. Once these tasks have been completed we will release to Beta, essentially meaning the Combat Tracker tool is complete."

 

[Fenris447]

My standard is that writing pages of text about something probably means you should put up or shut up. A comment about a small issue, such as those I've made here, is very different from the diatribe you've gone on here. And you know that. And the very fact that you're so committed to this argument that you go into people's post history to find things you can try and use against them is clear evidence that this is more than just a simple discussion for you.

If I were so vehement about something that I'm writing pages about how it's bad, I probably would indeed unsubscribe from such a service or cease my support of a product. But I guess you'd like to draw a false equivalence between what you're doing here and me making minor criticisms. That's your logical fallacy to make, and I certainly don't have the time, energy, or inclination to slam my metaphorical head against the brick wall of arguing with you about semantics and minor distinctions.

So you're not going to answer my question? I have to assume what you're doing here has a purpose. A goal. A reason and an objective to achieve. Otherwise you're just conducting a seminar that is, at best, egotistically masturbatory. But I would never want to accuse anyone of such silly behavior. Hence my assumption you have an endgame here.

My guess is that you want us all to agree that this is indeed the beginning of a coming pattern of poor quality assurance practices from D&D Beyond. And therefore we must all...be vigilant? That's where it gets hazy. You're pushing back on the idea of taking any actual action, so what is it you're doing here?

Can you actually say what you want out of this conversation?

 

[slobster]

Some of them do. Others follow the actual methodology. As I said, because some companies don't follow methodology doesn't mean that the terms and definitions of the methodology change. It just means those companies aren't following it. And as I also said upthread, the problem with that is because it increases risk, and we end up with what we had happen. Something broke core code* and they had to scramble to try to fix it.

What people seem to be glossing over is that the issue isn't this one error. A lot of folks are getting hung up on "this didn't ruin the world did it? No big deal!"

So I'll just tell you my response to this argument, obviously I can't speak for anyone else.

First off, the fact that so many companies and gamers do use the term differently does mean that it has a different definition in this context, IMO. It is widely used, commonly recognized, and unambiguous among gamers. Mention it to one of us in a casual conversation, "Oh hey I heard Baldur's Gate 3 is going to have a closed beta release for people who spend $600 on the complete DDB sourcebook package!", and we will instantly know what you are talking about. So yeah, IMO, that definition is a legitimate one, and the one that WotC was using for the initiative tracker doohicky.

As to the argument that this slip-up in industry terminology and the bug that took down the utility for a couple hours being a harbinger of terrible internal processes that we should all be very worried and concerned about...okay yeah, that's a definite mountain out of a molehill for me. I mean hey, maybe you will turn out to be right. Maybe this is all some big taste of terrible D&D softwarepocalypse to come. If it does happen, I fully bestow upon you the right to say "I told you so".

But that seems pretty silly to me right now, not gonna lie. I get where you are coming from, I just think it's a pretty big overreaction to what I perceive as a minor goof-up, proper use of industry jargon notwithstanding. The weird thing is I don't really see what's so worth arguing so much on the internet about either way, but then here's me at like 6 posts in still talking about it so stones and glass houses...

 

[Sacrosanct]

My standard is that writing pages of text about something probably means you should put up or shut up.

My initial posts weren't long pages of text. They were brief. It was only after people accused me of lying or not knowing what I'm talking about or repeating false information that I expanded my posts with supporting arguments to my original point.

And the very fact that you're so committed to this argument that you go into people's post history to find things you can try and use against them is clear evidence that this is more than just a simple discussion for you.

I never did that. Re: Mistwell, I've known him on the boards for over a decade. Probably two. I didn't go back to any of his previous posts. Re; Oofta, I was referring to a post he made in this thread from yesterday---hardly going into peoples' post history.

From your past two posts, is it possible for you to not lie about me? Both posts you made are not true. I'm asking politely. If you can't, and insist on lying about what I've done, then please don't reply to my any longer.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As to the argument that this slip-up in industry terminology and the bug that took down the utility for a couple hours being a harbinger of terrible internal processes that we should all be very worried and concerned about...okay yeah, that's a definite mountain out of a molehill for me. I mean hey, maybe you will turn out to be right. Maybe this is all some big taste of terrible D&D softwarepocalypse to come. If it does happen, I fully bestow upon you the right to say "I told you so".

I've never said this was a world ending, or disastrous thing akin to an apocalypse. Those were all straw man others have associated to me. I've said not finding this error was unacceptable for anyone remotely doing quality assurance testing. I said that the core code should not have been impacted (because they said the core code should not have been impacted). And I said they aren't using alpha or beta testing definitions accurately. I said my primary issue is what all those things infer (not the actual error itself): that they aren't using quality assurance testing appropriately. The reason it's my primary concern is because of what it means: that it adds risk of poor code continuing to go out. Which can give them a poorer reputation. They are the face of digital D&D, and other companies do similar software applications without these issues, so in a world where they want to keep being the face of digital D&D, they should try to ensure their QA testing is spot on and adheres to industry standards (since industry standards are robustly validated as being effective and accurate).

And if people don't think having good QA testing is important, I shall point them to BAttlefield 4, Daggerfall, Sword Coast Legends (you couldn't even get past he demo dungeon for the first week), Daikatana, Fallout 3 New Vegas, Ultima IX, Battlecruiser 3000 AD, and Fallout 76. One can easily make the argument that some video game companies that decided to not follow industry standards of quality assurance has resulted in very bad results.

 

[LordEntrails]

Why dont you go take this to a new thread? And stop thread crapping?

 

[Fenris447]

I think you’ve proved my point. I’m out. Good luck to you, sir.

 

[HarbingerX]

Now 10 pages. As a software engineer with 25 years of experience across many different industries, I have opinions on this software quality discussion, but will refrain as that's not really what I come here to ENWorld to talk about. But I will admit to being tempted.

There, that's all I'll say. Now to get back to discussing the combat tracker.

 

[HarbingerX]

I don't see the combat tracker being useful to me just yet as I don't use the encounter builder at the table. At first glance it seemed ok with the few features it has:

1. Integration to encounter builder
2. Initiative order tracker
3. hit point tracker
4. cross reference to monster stat block

Some things it needs:

• Character sheet integration. Perhaps it could show the character sheet as a stat block as well.
• Simple condition tracking.
• Death save roll tracking.

 

[lkj]

I don't see the combat tracker being useful to me just yet as I don't use the encounter builder at the table. At first glance it seemed ok with the few features it has:

1. Integration to encounter builder
2. Initiative order tracker
3. hit point tracker
4. cross reference to monster stat block

Some things it needs:

• Character sheet integration. Perhaps it could show the character sheet as a stat block as well.
• Simple condition tracking.
• Death save roll tracking.

I agree. I already use the Encounter Builder and find it useful-- mostly because of the easy access to a group of stat blocks with all the lovely rules cross referencing. But the Combat Tracker needs a couple more features before it would be worth it (to me) to not just use a sheet of paper to track initiative and monster hp:

1) Integration with the character sheet that at least 'live' updates hp but preferably also displays AC and a few other quick reference features

2) Persistence between sessions. As far as I can tell, once I close the tab it doesn't save where I was. I play short sessions online each week and have combats that don't finish in a session

3) Some sort of mini-note capability next to each combatant. I do mostly TotM and want to be able to make quick notes like 'this monster is engaged with this character'.

4) Have it do the maths for me to add and subtract hp. It sounds ridiculous, but that would be very useful.

Condition tracking, being able to apply dice rolling results (after the dice rolling gets integrated), and such are thing I expect but beyond the minimum.

From everything I've seen, I'll have my minimum requirements met pretty soon.

AD

 

[Panda-s1]

So if those terms did change in definition, I anxiously await you to provide those definitions, as well as examples of how words have changed meanings from just a few people using them incorrectly while those terms are still in current use among the industry. I have to admit, it strikes me as odd that someone with an educational background in linguistics (that's pretty vague anyway. I could also technically say that since I took Korean in college...), would argue that definitions of words change as long as someone starts using it in the wrong way. Better tell Merriam-Webster.

Difference between Alpha and Beta Testing - GeeksforGeeks

Your All-in-One Learning Portal: GeeksforGeeks is a comprehensive educational platform that empowers learners across domains-spanning computer science and programming, school education, upskilling, commerce, software tools, competitive exams, and more.

www.geeksforgeeks.org

Alpha Testing Vs Beta Testing – Difference Between Them

Alpha testing is an early alarm to identify the defects in software products and ensures the quality of product, unlike beta testing, testers performs the alpha testing.

www.guru99.com

What is Alpha Testing and Beta Testing: A Complete Guide

The purpose of this article is to educate you on alpha testing and beta testing terms.Alpha and Beta testing are equally important in any company and both play a major role in the success of a product. This article will enhance your knowledge about "Alpha Testing" and "Beta Testing" in an easily...

www.softwaretestinghelp.com

Alpha vs. Beta Testing | Centercode

In the past we’ve witnessed some confusion regarding the key differences between the Alpha Test and Beta Test phases of product development. While there are no hard and fast rules, and many companies have their own definitions and unique processes, the following information is generally true.

www.centercode.com

The Difference Between UAT, Alpha Testing, and Beta Testing - BETSOL

This post covers handling User-Acceptance, Alpha, and Beta Testing in an Agile environment. In modern software development, there are many types of testing ...

betsol.com

hmm, I guess you got a point with these websites though :/ let's see what they say (emphasis mine):

Alpha testing is performed by testers who ABSOLUTELY MUST BE internal employees of the organization.

Alpha testing is carried out in a lab environment and every single instance in the history of software development the testers are internal employees of the organization.

This is a form of internal acceptance testing performed only ever by the in-house software QA and testing teams, otherwise ur doin it wrong.

PARTICIPANTS (TESTERS)
Strangers from a variety of targeted technical environments, who can handle giving technical feedback during the test, but only if they aren't from outside the company (good luck finding strangers if your company is small?). Involving employees in this stage of testing (a.k.a. dogfooding) is the only possibility otherwise we're in a weird gray area here and some people might get upset.

Testers: Testers are only ever internal to the company but not part of the Project Team, or so help you god.

all good points lol

And if people don't think having good QA testing is important, I shall point them to BAttlefield 4, Daggerfall, Sword Coast Legends (you couldn't even get past he demo dungeon for the first week), Daikatana, Fallout 3 New Vegas, Ultima IX, Battlecruiser 3000 AD, and Fallout 76. One can easily make the argument that some video game companies that decided to not follow industry standards of quality assurance has resulted in very bad results.

okay no, don't throw other testers under the bus just because you refuse to accept other industries have and need different standards of development. I don't want to enter a discussion about crunch and arbitrary deadlines, but I can guarantee you all these games were being tested up until the night before release, and it's a huge slap in the face to all those testing teams working 80 hour work weeks with a long list of bugs marked "won't fix". this goes way beyond not following "standards of quality assurance".