Non CT tokens cover CT NPCs

[Weissrolf]

Aloha!

Tokens not on the CT are placed underneath PC tokens, but on top of CT NPC tokens, thus covering them (completely if bigger). Normal token stacking is not applied then.

[Weissrolf]

Is this supposed to happen? Should we wait for a fix or just forget about it? Please let us know.

https://i.imgur.com/Jc5nwhu.png

[Moon Wizard]

Token stacking will eventually be addressed so that tokens are stacked by ownership, then last moved by user.

Use of tokens for effects will always be problematic, because they exist in the same space as all other tokens. We recommend using a pointer or a separate image layer for any effects you want to place on the map.

Regards,
JPG

[Weissrolf]

Thanks for the answer. Let me clarify: in my example the "pit" token is just a normal token dragged and dropped from the Assets window. Tokens placed on the map in this way keep covering CT NPCs.

Using pointers is only of limited use for Pathfinder, because FG pointers cover different areas/squares than defined by PF rules.

Using image layers is a possibility, but organizing and handling them is more cumbersome and they cannot be owned/moved by players. Or can they? Those spell token extensions are really fancy and comfortable for these kind of things, but having them cover all NPCs makes them rather useless for the time being.

[LordEntrails]

Assets added to an image layer are not able to be manipulated by players, only the GM.

I've thought about a wish list item for token layers or different stacking behavior, but not sure what behavior would be ideal as well as I understand different people would probably want different behavior. That and it just hasn't become more than a very occasional issue for us.

[Weissrolf]

There is the Spell Token extension (on this forum) and the Token Stacking extension (on DMS Guild) that allow players good control. But since currently any Assets token put on the map covers those CT NPCs for both GMs and players I don't make any use of all those spell token assets I bought.

[Weissrolf]

The SW shop is selling spell template tokens. I would love to use these as tokens. But as long as this bug is not fixed they are useless, because the cover all NPC tokens.

[Zacchaeus]

The SW shop is selling spell template tokens. I would love to use these as tokens. But as long as this bug is not fixed they are useless, because the cover all NPC tokens.

Be aware the templates are images designed to be used with the map layers. They're not tokens.

[Egheal]

The SW shop is selling spell template tokens. I would love to use these as tokens. But as long as this bug is not fixed they are useless, because the cover all NPC tokens.

You can use your tokens, just past them on the map as stamp. Here is an example of a fireball token. Just tell your players to show the location of the spell via (ctrl(right+left click)) then put yourself the token on the location by stamping it. Then the player remove the location (another right+left click).42682.

[Zacchaeus]

You can use your tokens, just past them on the map as stamp. Here is an example of a fireball token. Just tell your players to show the location of the spell via (ctrl(right+left click)) then put yourself the token on the location by stamping it. Then the player remove the location (another right+left click)..

I think he wants the token on the map as a token so the players can interact with them - rather than adding them to a layer; which only the DM can control.

[Weissrolf]

Indeed I want to get away from the GM (me) having to place all things and having to meddle with various menus and buttons. Images can be used as tokens. Asset tokens should not cover NPCs.

[Weissrolf]

Unfortunately still not fixed in the last version. Is this looked into?

[Zacchaeus]

Moon Wizard said previously that it was on the list but hadn't bubbled to the surface yet. I doubt this is something with terribly high priority, but I don't know that for sure.

[Weissrolf]

So are we supposed to not make use of asset tokens anymore then? Because tokens that cover all NPCs are rather useless in practice.

[Jiminimonka]

LOS and the Forge are priorities at the moment (as Moon Wizard said) - along with important standard feature bug fixes.

[Weissrolf]

How can the Forge be higher priority than one of the most basic and long-time features? Manually updating extensions does not keep me from using extensions, bugged token stacking does keep me from using tokens. I paid for these tokens and they are useless now, because they cover all NPCs.

The latter of which also makes LOS kind of useless once tokens are placed on the map. Once NPCs are covered by tokens it doesn't matter whether they are standing in the light or not, they are not visible anymore.

But thanks for chiming in.

[Zacchaeus]

So are we supposed to not make use of asset tokens anymore then? Because tokens that cover all NPCs are rather useless in practice.
Use images in a separate layer. I know that’s not what you want but it’s the only current way to get around the problem that you have. So yes, don’t use non CT tokens on your images.

[Kelrugem]

you can also put tokens into the stamp of the tile mode and add those tokens as assets on the map :) (yeah, I know you would like to avoid using them like that, but at least you can then use what you have purchased. Or you could write to that developer, saying that FGU does currently not use those things as tokens, and they may change that then. The tokens in the assets are mainly for attaching them to sheets right now)

[LordEntrails]

There are work arounds for non-CT token use. There is no work arounds for extension developers who wish to get paid.

[Weissrolf]

<calm voice>I already paid said developers, even when their extensions only work for DND or when they removed Pathfinder support because of the DMS Guild debacle. Among others I paid for two extensions that are meant to allow usage of tokens as spell-effect areas by players and one meant for token stacking. None of these are usable in FGU at this time.

So my money is now invested into a new extensions feature that is meant to pull more money out of me while the extensions features I already paid for are not usable anymore. How do you suggest I should feel and react about this? Genuine question.

[Kelrugem]

<calm voice>I already paid said developers, even when their extensions only work for DND or when they removed Pathfinder support because of the DMS Guild debacle. Among others I paid for two extensions that are meant to allow usage of tokens as spell-effect areas by players and one meant for token stacking. None of these are usable in FGU at this time.

So my money is now invested into a new extensions feature that is meant to pull more money out of me while the extensions features I already paid for are not usable anymore. How do you suggest I should feel and react about this? Genuine question.

I understand the frustration. But there is not much else to suggest right now, I personally would not recommend such extensions right now. They were often originally built for FGC and are seemingly not properly updated. (I hope those extensions were not advertised as FGU extensions)

The token stuff and FGU in general is of course still developed, so, features will still be added of course; about the spell template, see that post here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?65018-FG-Spell-Templates-Usable-by-Players&p=571391&viewfull=1#post571391 :)

Right now, I'd try to stick how FGU handles those things. Do not use those extensions, maybe even ask for a refund because they are not proper for FGU. Then use pointers for those things, or use image assets for spell effects etc (especially for long-lasting spells; when your players often cast certain spells, then I would already drag&drop those assets on the map and hide them before the actual game started)

That is how those things work right now. Even when an extension changes this, that extension may often break because they touch a regularly-updated field of FGU

[LordEntrails]

<calm voice>I already paid said developers, even when their extensions only work for DND or when they removed Pathfinder support because of the DMS Guild debacle. Among others I paid for two extensions that are meant to allow usage of tokens as spell-effect areas by players and one meant for token stacking. None of these are usable in FGU at this time.

So my money is now invested into a new feature that is meant to pull more money out of me while the features I already paid for are not usable. How do you suggest I should feel and react about this? Genuine question.
Thanks for the calm voice, hopefully you'll read my reply in the same vein.

Honestly? Like you made a poor decision buying an extension for a feature you wanted in a program that was in beta or early release and undergoing rapid changes. That would make me frustrated and annoyed, at myself, not at someone else. And here's why -

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are my assumptions; You are smart enough to know that community extensions, free or paid, are not the responsibility of SmiteWorks to make work in FG. And that because they require community developers to be dependent upon SW developers and what they do with the code, that it will always be challenging forcommunity extension to maintain support. You also know that FGU is a new program that is under going rapid development with new features that change regularly. And maybe you knew that token stacking issues were an issue in FGC, and certainly that they were in FGU since you bought extensions to change the behavior.

So I (and probably everyone else) understand why you might want the FGU behavior changed. But even though it is not ideal, and may be so far from ideal that you chose not to use the work arounds, but they exist if you chose to use them.

I think you are also aware that from the discussion in this thread that very few users tend to be particularly bothered by this issue. Where I also think you are aware of the numerous community developers & even more GMs affected by the DMsG / Forge development issue. And the very popular dynamic lighting/vision and how many folks are clamoring for. Do you really think this issue is more important than those two? And then can you, or do you consider the larger business challenges of software development? Because, honestly, you come across on the forums that every time you find something that doesn't work the way you want it to, that you seem to think the SW devs should drop everything and solve your issue, regardless of the opinions of any other community members or the business realities SW actual has to deal with.

Look, I know you may not have reason to trust the business decision SW makes because you may not agree with them or have enough experience with them for them to have yet earned that trust and so you may not feel they are prioritizing things appropriately. I think you know where I'm going with this, and not sure I've got much more to say that would be constructive.

I will say that my approach to things is this; I report bugs when I find them, I make suggestions when I think of them, and I vote on other suggestions that I would find valuable. And then I don't worry about it. It's not in my control, so I'm not going to spend my emotional energy on it.

[Weissrolf]

Me buying an extension is a bad thing, but SW prioritizing time to develop "The Forge" to sell me the same extension is a good thing? There is some double-standard here.

Especially the Spell Token Extension seems to do what it advertises and worked as expected when I last tested it. Putting any assets token on a map with or without an extension does not work as expected, though, since they keep covering CT NPCs.

The latter is a question of which tokens should be on top of other tokens. I can think of various instances where I would want asset tokens to be at the very bottom of the token stack, below CT tokens. This is how it currently works for PC CT tokens, which are on top of all other tokens, including asset tokens. Why would NPC CT tokens be below asset tokens by default? (other than maybe marking them with some cross or letter tokens on top of them, which seems rather niche)

And to underline this again: I am not asking SW to make an extension work, I am asking to make standard token functionality work in a way that it does *not* inadvertendly cover NPC CT tokens.

I am mildly annoyed about the workarounds being suggested as viable long-term options. Users need a better UI experience, less clicking and more convenience while handling the game. Having users click a myriads of buttons and sub-options to use long-term workarounds is the opposite of where SW (or anyone) should go with their software.

[Kelrugem]

Me buying an extension is a bad thing, but SW prioritizing time to develop "The Forge" to sell me the same extension is a good thing? There is some double-standard here.

Especially the Spell Token Extension seems to do what it advertises and worked as expected when I last tested it. Putting any assets token on a map with or without an extension does not work as expected, though, since they keep covering CT NPCs.

The latter is a question of which tokens should be on top of other tokens. I can think of various instances where I would want asset tokens to be at the very bottom of the token stack, below CT tokens. This is how it currently works for PC CT tokens, which are on top of all other tokens, including asset tokens. Why would NPC CT tokens be below asset tokens by default? (other than maybe marking them with some cross or letter tokens on top of them, which seems rather niche)

And to underline this again: I am not asking SW to make an extension work, I am asking to make standard token functionality work in a way that it does *not* inadvertendly cover NPC CT tokens.

I am mildly annoyed about the workarounds being suggested as viable long-term options. Users need a better UI experience, less clicking and more convenience while handling the game. Having users click a myriads of buttons and sub-options to use long-term workarounds is the opposite of where SW (or anyone) should go with their software.

The Forge thing is mainly a community support right now because a lot of people suddenly got into problems with respect to that. It may have been differently when people never would have started selling extensions on DMSguild. Moreover, the Forge is also mainly about just supporting an easier updating of extensions and reducing workload of support questions, of those many arise from broken extensions :) When there would be no forge, there would be a lot of people saying that they want their support of extensions back and complain about that. So, ignoring that forge stuff may just lead to other problems; hence, it is not fair to say that there are "double-standards". It should be clear that this is an exceptional situation.

The tokens are not really intended to used directly from the assets, just for assigning them to sheets; I never had problems with that, but seemingly my expectations about that was in alignment in how FG works. Not saying, that it would not be nice to have some z-axis for the token stacking related stuff. Just saying, that tokens are not intended to be used like that right now, which is why there are pointers for that, and now also support of layering for image assets to shift the stacking stuff there. And at some point in the future there might be that mentioned z-axis :) Until then I really suggest not using those extensions to avoid dissatisfaction

[Weissrolf]

I am not against The Forge, I like enhancing my UI experience by using a variety of extensions and will make ample use of it. But when people are told not to expect extensions to work properly then how can The Forge = Extensions shop be a priority over basic functionality fixing?

I also do not agree that tokens are not meant to be dragged to maps directly. It worked that way in Classic and it still works that way in Unity. Only that in Unity asset tokens *always* cover Combat Tracker NPCs now, there seems to be no way around it. There also is no easy one button way to using tokens on image layers, even less so without forfeiting map screen estate.

Personally I would be fine with asset tokens just being at the bottom of the stack until a better solution is found. PC tokens on top, NPC tokens below PC tokens and asset tokens below NPC tokens. This sounds like a one-number-source-code-edit to me, unless the code is messed up.

Concerning the Spell Token extension: it allows players to easily drag properly scaled spell area tokens to the map themselves without any messing around. It's a simple drag & drop action, period. No GM based workaround messing with more complex layer functions, but an easy player based functionality. Should I need an extension for that? No. But since I do need one and even have to pay for it I would like for FG at least not getting in the way of its proper functionality because FGU's asset tokens mess up NPC tokens.

[LordEntrails]

Me buying an extension is a bad thing, but SW prioritizing time to develop "The Forge" to sell me the same extension is a good thing? There is some double-standard here.
I think you are making assumptions that have no basis. The concern over developers not being able to gift/assign/grant previous customers copies of their extensions when available on the Forge has already been discussed. I have faith that such capability will be available. You choice what you chose to believe may come.


I am mildly annoyed about the workarounds being suggested as viable long-term options. Users need a better UI experience, less clicking and more convenience while handling the game. Having users click a myriads of buttons and sub-options to use long-term workarounds is the opposite of where SW (or anyone) should go with their software.
Long term? Don't know how long that is. Some folks would consider a week a long term solution, some a decade. SW has made no statements as to when this might be addressed. To pretend it is the only issue they need to address as they continue to enhance, adapt and improve FG is disingenuous.


God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference.

[Weissrolf]

Anything "will eventually" without time-frame given is a long-term issue, even more so after nearly 2 months of nothing more being mentioned in the department.

Could anyone explain why asset tokens permanently cover NPC tokens? Is this an intentional design decision that follow some logic I fail to understand at this point?

Would it be hard to change FGU's current permanent stacking order to place NPC tokens on top of asset tokens instead of below (like much more work other than changing a single z-order line of code from 1-2-3 to 1-3-2)?

Please leave religion out of this, we have enough world problems based on religion already.

[Kelrugem]

I am not against The Forge, I like enhancing my UI experience by using a variety of extensions and will make ample use of it. But when people are told not to expect extensions to work properly then how can The Forge = Extensions shop be a priority over basic functionality fixing?

I also do not agree that tokens are not meant to be dragged to maps directly. It worked that way in Classic and it still works that way in Unity. Only that in Unity asset tokens *always* cover Combat Tracker NPCs now, there seems to be no way around it. There also is no easy one button way to using tokens on image layers, even less so without forfeiting map screen estate.

Personally I would be fine with asset tokens just being at the bottom of the stack until a better solution is found. PC tokens on top, NPC tokens below PC tokens and asset tokens below NPC tokens. This sounds like a one-number-source-code-edit to me, unless the code is messed up.

Concerning the Spell Token extension: it allows players to easily drag properly scaled spell area tokens to the map themselves without any messing around. It's a simple drag & drop action, period. No GM based workaround messing with more complex layer functions, but an easy player based functionality. Should I need an extension for that? No. But since I do need one and even have to pay for it I would like for FG at least not getting in the way of its proper functionality because FGU's asset tokens mess up NPC tokens.

I see the problem with extensions :) But that is more like a problem of their developers, they should not advertise something which does not work as intended/expected (or at least mention it in some disclaimer); SmiteWorks cannot track all those extensions and their usablility. Even with the Forge, users should probably still check whether or not extensions work as intended (think of that like modding a game where similar issues are given)

I would also like that players can use their own spell tokens, which is why I linked Moon Wizards previous answer to that :) It came up as a feature, its priority is just certainly lower than the priorities of dynamic lighting and the forge; that spell token feature may come later then, and it would be certainly nice when players can do similar things, too :) Since the development of the Forge already started, I doubt that there will be reordering of those priorities

[Weissrolf]

This is not a thread about extensions (even though they are affected), though, this is a thread about a FGU issue. Asset tokens *always* cover NPC tokens, they should not.

The problem happens without extensions being installed, it should not happen. This affects basic functionality, which ought to work, so I consider it a bug.

https://i.imgur.com/Jc5nwhu.png

[Trenloe]

This is not a thread about extensions (even though they are affected), though, this is a thread about a FGU issue. Asset tokens *always* cover NPC tokens, they should not.

The problem happens without extensions being installed, it should not happen. This affects basic functionality, which ought to work, so I consider it a bug.
Then I suggest you take the only post by a developer in this thread (post #3) as the current situation. Everyone else who has been posting in this thread has been offering workarounds and opinions. And, as has been stated a few times, this is not a priority for the developers - even if *you* consider it a big priority. Sorry, but that's the fact - there are much higher priorities on the developer list at this time. A post #3 said: "Token stacking will eventually be addressed so that tokens are stacked by ownership, then last moved by user."

Most people will admit that it will be nice when the stacking order is addressed - as Moon Wizard says it will be. Until then a few options for workarounds have been mentioned in this thread - I know you don't like them, but that's where we are right now.

[Weissrolf]

I consider fixing basic functionality a bigger priority than an extension shop, yes. Both SW and the extension developers already monetized their software, aka I already paid them. Now fix bugs before asking me to participate in another monetization effort.

[Trenloe]

I consider fixing basic functionality a bigger priority than an extension shop, yes. Both SW and the extension developers already monetized their software, aka I already paid them. Now fix bugs before asking me to participate in another monetization effort.
All software development has to be prioritized against a number of factors, some that may not be obvious looking from the outside. This is a low priority at present. Those are the facts of the matter. You seem to think that going on and on about low priority things on these forums will change that. You should have learnt by now that approach doesn't work on these forums. You've raised your issue, the main FG dev has said they plan to look into it. That's it.

[Weissrolf]

Thanks for weighting in your opinion like I weighted in my own. Customer feedback is important, especially from those who already paid for a supposedly functioning product.

[Trenloe]

Customer feedback is important, especially from those who already paid for a supposedly functioning product.
I agree. No one is disputing that this is an issue and you're entitled to raise it. Which you have, and it's been recognised. But if you keep going on and on about something this low priority (yes, in the greater scheme of things, it is a low priority) it gets extremely annoying, and actually ends up being counter productive; ever heard of the saying "you catch more bees with honey than vinegar"? It's very appropriate - especially on these forums and with Fantasy Grounds employees. It is definitely not a case of "he who shouts loudest gets heard" - far from it. You've given your important customer feedback, the main FG dev heard and replied to you that they'll look into it. Realising this wasn't good enough for you, community members tried to help by offering alternatives, but you dismiss their assistance and steadfastly focus on a low priority issue that the devs say they'll look into. It wastes peoples time, is incredibly annoying and is counter productive. Do you actually think you're helping your cause? No, you're not. You're only shooting yourself in the foot by constantly nagging about such issues.

[bratch9]

Just to post my issues with tokens on FGC and FGU. which seems to be inconsistent and broken on both platforms...


FGC v3.3.12, see fgc.png..

this manages tokens better than fgu does at the moment. As expected when you move a token it become the top of the stack... ( on host side, seems same on client. )

My issue is that 'selection' seems to run from the bottom of the stack !!!

while you can not see my 'cursor' in the image its over 'c' for crocodile, which is at the top of stack visibility, while 's' for sue is at the bottom.. if I 'click' it moves 'sue' and not 'crocodile'.

I'm not sure if this is 'as expected', because if 'c' crocodile was fully over 's' sue I'd not be able to move sue if it picked from the top without moving crocodile

From a 'user' point of view, if my cursor is over 'c' crocodile I'd expect to move 'c' for crocodile.

So when I move a token I have to keep a good eye on the 'help' text as that does seem to show which token will be used... its just not good when the cursor is over a token at the top and it move a different token..


FGU v4.0.7 ( updated yesterday with release notes, 'Token widgets would sometimes draw out of order. Fixed.', not sure if this is tokens on map or on say character sheet when 'dice' tokens are added to corner of ui boxes etc.. )

with FGU see 'fgu_before.png', this is the token setup.. and 'fgu_after', when I select and move 's' token it goes from top of stack to below 'b', you can see in both cases the 'green' run of last selected and the tokens not been on top.

( As others have said NPC tokens seem to end up at the bottom.. )

while 'selection' for tokens works as I'd expect, mouse over the top visible does select and help text the top token. ( unlike FGC.. )



Notes..

While this has an issue with my extension for spell tokens, the fact that the basic FGC and FGU have different 'render order' updates and different 'selection' pickups, I consider an issue. ( As we expect both to work in the same way.. )


While I understand that FGC seems render order is in '<tokens>' section of moduledb xml and as you move token the '<token>' list changes order with render order been in order of '<token>' array so when you move a token it end up at the end of the list or the bottom of the file...

While FGU in the modulesdb xml file uses a new 'layer' per token and a <token> section in that layer, it seems that the <parentid> controls draw order, but this can be inconsistent. Even with a few items as things moved about I've seen these got to -11 way more than the 'map layer' priority... as it would suggest that these should be negative draw order.. if -1 draws on top of -2 going down the count to the main map which 'should' be the lowest value. ( And gets lower as you add more tokens/layers etc.. ) But I've seen -1(s) -2(b) -4(c) draw for token S on top down to token C at the bottom, and -3(b) -2(c) -1(s) with token B on top to token S at the bottom... which implies some other item is controlling draw order and not <parentid>

I suspect these sorts of differences are why FGC/FGU differ in token draw order responses and token selection responses.

From my extension point of view, mainly FGU usage, the inconsistent <parentid> values make is impossible for me to control this to create the order I want, but I've not implemented a test due to visual observation showing these inconsistencies..
While for FGC I could probably grab the <tokens> list and force in an order change and maybe make these work with the spell tokens always going at the head of the list and so drawn just after the map with other tokens on top..

[Weissrolf]

Which you have, and it's been recognised. But if you keep going on and on about something this low priority (yes, in the greater scheme of things, it is a low priority) it gets extremely annoying, and actually ends up being counter productive
I raised the original issue 1.5 months ago and now asked for the current status. The community answered that I should keep using the workaround (ad infinitum). You may find the former annoying, I may find the latter annoying.

We will not agree that a new monetizing extension shop system should be prioritized over already paid for product support. At least not at a time when the originally paid for product is officially only 2 months old! I paid for working software and for getting bugs fixed. You can keep the change for inventing a new shop system later.


ever heard of the saying "you catch more bees with honey than vinegar"?
We are not in the bees business. I paid for a software product that officially was only released 2 months ago. Support the product you were paid for, don't tell me to use workaround and wait for a vaguely promised future system without time-line given.


You've given your important customer feedback, the main FG dev heard and replied to you that they'll look into it.
Said developer wrote that they may integrate a new system some time in a vaguely future. This is not what was asked for. What was asked for is that an issue with the current system is fixed in a timely manner. The product was released only 2 months ago, the issue was raised 1.5 months ago. Vaguely promising a whole new system is not the answer to the issue being raided.


Realising this wasn't good enough for you, community members tried to help by offering alternatives, but you dismiss their assistance and steadfastly focus on a low priority issue that the devs say they'll look into. It wastes peoples time, is incredibly annoying and is counter productive. Do you actually think you're helping your cause? No, you're not. You're only shooting yourself in the foot by constantly nagging about such issues.
Asking for a neutral status update 1.5 months after raising the original issue if not exactly "constantly nagging". Here is what I wrote: "Unfortunately still not fixed in the last version. Is this looked into?"

Nothing more, nothing less.

But here is some nagging: The product is new, it's just been released. Support your just released and paid for product first, invent other monetizing products later (extension shop)!

[SilentRuin]

No offense Weissrolf, but you brought up an issue. It was noted. Now you you have to wait. I have issues I consider more important than yours - but once I note them - and feel they have been seen and noted - I do not go on like "my issue" is the most important issue. Limited resources, many things to accomplish. Your issue is not important to me - I know how to work around it. My issues are probably not important to you.

But some friendly advice - that I know you'll misconstrue - but I feel needs to be said anyway...

Point made. Nothing you are saying is new and you are sounding like you think your issues are more important than mine and should be moved to the front of the queue. I object, as I feel mine are more important and they should be at the front of the queue. And I'm sure other feel theirs's are more important and both of our issues need to be moved back in the queue so their priorities can be addressed first. And yet others....

As you can see - there is a lot going on - and because you feel you should get special treatment moving your issue to the top of "things that need to be done" is not going to go over well.

I know you won't see it this way - but that's fine. I don't see it your way either.

[Weissrolf]

Well, after 1.5 months I have yet to know if the issue is going to be fixed or not. The only answer given was that at some point in the future there will be an overhaul. Given that the product just came out 2 months ago this is indeed not a satisfactory answer.

No problem waiting for your issues to be fixed first, every support for an already paid product is good. But issues not being fixed because of new monetizing features when the product was only just released is not an answer I am going to have much sympathy for at this point.

But point taken: 1.5 months is not enough time to wait, so I will ask for a new status 3 months from now instead. Several paid for spell token packs (+extensions) remain unused until then.

[Kelrugem]

because of new monetizing features

Sorry, but what I find a bit annoying and do completely not understand is your issue with that you need to pay extra, for whatever reason. First of all, extensions are not from SmiteWorks and by far not mandatory. When you decide to buy one, then that has nothing to do with SmiteWorks' own development. You have probably a permanent license, that means you do not need to pay anything for many many years (Unity which one had to buy separately came after 16 years of FGC), while still recieving all possible updates without any fee.

Second, it was mentioned by the devs that the Forge will actually not support monetizing anything at the beginning. It is first of all about building a portal where people can easily distribute and update their community stuff. And, that type of portal is already asked for many years, that subject came up very often. That probably beats your 1.5 months, and many people see that as a lack/problem as you do with the token stacking, so, just following that argument the Forge is more important. (As an extension developer, I am way more excited about the Forge and find it more important, but, again, not due to the monetizing thing, which may come somewhen, because I won't ask for money. That also shows that the Forge is about free stuff by the way, too, to come back to my first argument. Dynamic lighting is also extremely more important for me, and you probably saw in the forums that this is the case for many, simply also due to that many other vtts have that such that this is also viewed as a lack of FG by many; so, also here understandable that lighting has way more priority)

So, I really understand your frustration, and it would be indeed nice to have a better token system. But please understand that your sense of priority is really not shared by everyone :) Tokens were not intended to be used like that, also not in FGC; that may also probably explain why it has not so much priority because the intended ways for the things you want to do is what you call "workaround". But then you raised your problem, so, a dev answered and was aware of that there are people using tokens not just from the CT. After the release of the spell template module there were even more people asking for a new system of those things to allow players more control over that, which is why I linked you a more recent answer of Moon Wizard about that this request is more upfront now and they will speak about its priority in February among other requested features :) (but beware, another frequent request is the built-in sound stuff which was mentioned by the devs until the forge came up; so, that might have more priority after the forge and the lighting) (and to be clear, the linked answer was about the spell templates, but it is somewhat related to this here, because you use those for that and you have this token problem also when players apply their spell templates. So, related)

My recommendation is really: Stay away from paid extensions which are not from SmiteWorks, because you mention that monetizing thing so often that I got the feeling that you are frustrated about to have paid extra money for something which does currently not work, which I understand. But there is only so much one can do with community work. Ask for a refund of that extension(s)/module(s)

It is just a bit frustrating for me to spend time for you searching for more recent answers of the devs about that, and at the end you just say we always write the same "ad infinitum"

[Weissrolf]

Sorry, but what I find a bit annoying and do completely not understand is your issue with that you need to pay extra, for whatever reason.
I did not claim that I need to pay extra, so no need to be annoyed. My original post was a simple one-liner status update question, which then again got blown up into a discussion for my entitlement to post these questions.

What I then wrote was that I already paid for a product that only came out 2 months ago and that I also bought spell templates (graphics) to be used as asset tokens. I would prefer developer time being spent on the just released product instead of diverting energy to other new products for the time being.


You have probably a permanent license, that means you do not need to pay anything for many many years (Unity which one had to buy separately came after 16 years of FGC), while still recieving all possible updates without any fee.
At this time I am just happy to receive bug fixes and optimizations for the product that I only just bought. No one knows what happens in a year or ten. Once Corona restrictions are over my groups will meet at the table again, with me using FGU for the CT and adventure/NPC details only. We will use printed out maps on the table instead of FGU maps then.


Second, it was mentioned by the devs that the Forge will actually not support monetizing anything at the beginning.
When I asked in this very thread: "How can the Forge be higher priority than one of the most basic and long-time features?" the first answer given by the community was: "There are work arounds for non-CT token use. There is no work arounds for extension developers who wish to get paid."


It is first of all about building a portal where people can easily distribute and update their community stuff. And, that type of portal is already asked for many years, that subject came up very often.
And I am all for it. But when I bought FGU it was not advertised as a vehicle for an extension shop, it was advertised as a VTT that enabled me to do VTT things. Placing spell tokens on the map is a VTT thing which currently is useless in FGU because NPC tokens get covered up.

Moving an asset token directly on the map is a simple action: grab the token, drop it somewhere else. Moving an image layer around involves pressing three different buttons at different places on the screen while forfeiting map screen estate to do so. Only after that can you grab and drop the token. One is quick set and forget, the other is cumbersome enough that I do not care to introduce that extra work in my ongoing sessions, despite already having bought spell templates for extra money.


That probably beats your 1.5 months, and many people see that as a lack/problem as you do with the token stacking, so, just following that argument the Forge is more important.
The Forge is a feature outside of the main product. I paid for the main product and it did not seem to work properly. So 1.5 months I wrote a bug report and now I asked for a simple and neutral status update. Unfortunately that lead to a discussion whether I am entitled to do so. Next time I will wait at least 3 months before asking for a status update.


Dynamic lighting is also extremely more important for me, and you probably saw in the forums that this is the case for many, simply also due to that many other vtts have that such that this is also viewed as a lack of FG by many; so, also here understandable that lighting has way more priority)
I did not question dynamic lighting to be "important". At this point in time LOS and promise for DL is explicitly the only feature that makes our groups endure the trials and tribulations of Unity (plus the hurdles of re-importing an ongoing campaign back from FGU to FGC).


Tokens were not intended to be used like that, also not in FGC; that may also probably explain why it has not so much priority because the intended ways for the things you want to do is what you call "workaround".
The "workaround" listed in this thread are not even possible in FGC, so how were spell template tokens supposed to be used back then?! And if asset tokens are not meant to be dragged and dropped on maps, why is it even possible? Do I need to change my bug report to "tokens can be dragged to the map, this is not intended and thus seems like a bug"?

I surely appreciate getting workaround hints from the community, as a computer guy I know about software restrictions and need for workarounds. But I appreciate hints mostly when I ask for them, not when they are shoved down my throat while telling me to be happy with the substitute. From a paying customer's point of view workarounds are like asking for the airport in this town while everyone keeps pointing to the bus station three towns away. At some point the road to the airport either gets finished within a well defined time-line or better close the whole airport down.


But then you raised your problem, so, a dev answered and was aware of that there are people using tokens not just from the CT.
They better are aware, because their software allows to do so for years already and dragging tokens onto the map seems like the most natural thing to do. At no point does the software suggest that the user is not supposed to do this despite it being possible.


... which is why I linked you a more recent answer of Moon Wizard about that this request is more upfront now
Moon Wizard: "However, all of our developers are currently tied up with Lighting/Vision and Forge projects, in addition to ongoing maintenance and fixes."

I thought I was asking for a maintenance fix here, but obviously I am not. Seems like I am asking for a new feature which cannot be implemented for the time being because everyone is tied up with other stuff.


and they will speak about its priority in February among other requested features :)
Moon Wizard: "and this is one of the possible projects."

Again, I thought I was asking for a maintenance fix, not a new feature: Keep asset tokens from covering NPC tokens. Lower asset strata versus NPC strata and we are good to go for some time. Implement new features once the present features are conveniently usable.


... you mention that monetizing thing so often that I got the feeling that you are frustrated about to have paid extra money for something which does currently not work, which I understand.
I don't like software companies diverting developer time away from just released products in order to bring out new products. Even less so when subscription models are used. Adobe is one of the companies that keep spending my subscription money on new stuff while neglecting the old, bad luck for me.


Ask for a refund of that extension(s)/module(s)
The extension works as advertised, no need asking for a refund. The asset vs. NPC problem is independent of extensions, which is why I reported it as an issue and asked for a simple status update 1.5 months later, or any answer directly relating to the problem at hand instead of future visions of new and different features.


It is just a bit frustrating for me to spend time for you searching for more recent answers of the devs about that, and at the end you just say we always write the same "ad infinitum"
Thanks for the extra mile, it's well appreciated. I did not state that you keep writing the same ad infinitum. I stated that the hints are telling to keep using workarounds ad infinitum.

Ask one of my players who gets kicked out twice a night every week if he intends to spend money on FantasyGrounds in a foreseeable future. Ask one of the other members of my gaming groups if they intend to move money towards SW's way. These are people who spent a lot of money on their RPG hobby, they experience FantasyGrounds first hand every week, but still not a single one felt an urge to spent money on it during a pandemic that keeps people mostly only playing via VTT. In a way that's okay, because I bought the Ultimate licence in order to pay for everyone else. But if using FGU regularly is not incentive to buy it then SW might have a problem finding new customers.

[Zacchaeus]

Oh, enough.

The question has been asked and Moon Wizard has answered. I'm closing this thread since there's no further point in repeating the same mantra over and over again.