Pre-Alpha, really?

[Aeolius]

Considering that they don't even have a z-axis and might not even plan to include one for a game where many of the monsters, especially the iconic ones can fly should say everything about how well the development went.

Haven't you heard? In 4e, beholders roll.

 

[Hussar]

On the whole Z axis thing.

As someone who's played a lot of online VTT games, Z axis is probably the easiest thing to get around. Every mini will have a caption line underneath it (even if it only contains a name). You simply annotate that caption line with the elevation of the mini.

Sure, the graphics representation might take a while, but, doing Z axis stuff on VTT's is simple.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I'm at least glad they said they wouldn't launch it until it was ready for use. Can you imagine if they started the subcriptions and everyone had to pay for a "pre-alpha" version?

Although, this could also mean that yes, we won't see the DDI in full functionality until 2009 or later.

 

[sukael]

Now I'm wondering if MapTool will be all the way into 3D by the time the DDI VTT is out. ;D

 

[Aeolius]

Now I'm wondering if MapTool will be all the way into 3D by the time the DDI VTT is out. ;D

Back in August, I asked the klooge.werks folks about using their VTT for a 3D environment. Some replies I received included:

- The ability of Klooge to handle multiple maps at the same time can be an asset with this as well. One view from top down, one view from the side. The players can flip back and forth between the maps as they wish.

- With the correct Altitude noted for each Icon Klooge will do all the math for you to correctly compute distances, and the like.

- If you were going for the top down view for the main panel I can also see that changing the Icons size would be a nice representation to show visually depth as well as the alitude bar. i.e. Human at the surface is 2.5 size, 50 feet down is 2.0, 100 feet down is 1.5, etc.

(klooge.werks thread HERE )

 

[scrubkai]

These guys have no idea of what they are talking about. Per-Alpha to me means a requirements document and no code done yet. Pre-Alpha means "still in design phase".

Interesting I think we have different definitions.
At least at the last two software companies I've worked for:

Design: Means working on design and no significant code is done yet.
Development: Design done (or mostly done depending on your methodolgy) and coding well in progress.
Pre-Alpha: we are in development and some code must still be done to impliment the inital set of features.
Apha - All development of major features completed, but the program still has functional bugs.
Beta - All features completed with no known High severity bugs. This is the point we send the application externally for User Acceptance Testing.
Gold - Only low severity bugs are known to remain in the system.

(Note this also depends on the software methology that is being using. RAD and XP would have very different termonolgy then waterfall... but lets assume they are working on a more waterfall process for easy of discussion.)

Depending on the Team size, I've been on project that are Pre-Alpha 3 months before release. Particually if we have just added or subtracked a major feature to try to make our release schedule. Given too that this is a web app, they don't need time to duplicate and ship the product, so they can work right up to the last minute to get this software done.

So if they are very close to Alpha, I'm not seeing this as too much of a red flag.

Also note: They are saying this will be released AROUND the release time of 4th edition. So this may well not be relased until July...

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Also note: They are saying this will be released AROUND the release time of 4th edition. So this may well not be relased until July...

Yes, while they are covering their bases well enough with that statement, the success of the product relies on both being fully functional and being on time. For many software products being on time is not quite so critical if it is a month or two behind schedule. For the DDI success is going to depend in part on being released when the core books come out in June. At that time there will be rush of people buying that product with an equal amount of enthusiasm to use the online tools that are supposed to complement and improve the experience. If the product is either buggy or delayed by even a couple of months many of these potential customers will show up, be disappointed, and possibly not come back.

 

[Delta]

Am I the only person that plays MTG:O?

OR that thinks the implementation (If not the price point, which leads into another DDI thread that somebody already started) is absolutly brilliant?

Not a MTG:O player. I did work at a game company that bid for (and lost) the MTG:O project when it was first announced.

The Wikipedia article is very interesting (esp., when WOTC took over v2.0 from Leaping Lizards, crashed servers, couldn't extend it, withdrew v2.0 back to beta, has slipped v3.0 for a few years at this point).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_the_gathering_online#History

 

[ThirdWizard]

The actual quote from Scott Rouse was:

Speaking of D&D Insider, there will be demos of the pre-alpha versions of the Character Creator (mini builder) and Game Table at D&D Experience.

I want to stress a couple things about these tools as you look at screen shots or creation videos on the web:

1) These are pre-Alpha versions.

I hosted some screen shots on photobucket of characters made by WOTC staff in our pre-alpha testing of the character builder.

Where is the WotC quote that says that the current build is pre-alpha, because those quotes, can be read to be that it isn't.

 

[delericho]

Sounds like par for the course as far as WotC and their electronic endeavors go....

My thoughts exactly. I just hope they haven't bet too much on this horse.