Release Fantasy Grounds Unity now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddavison

I think it is fair to say that we've lost some potential customers & users due to port forwarding and lack of dynamic line of sight. FGU should hopefully bring many of those people back. If we lost you because you really don't like the general interface, then I don't think FGU is going to bring you back.

---

From my XP, I'd argue it's first and foremost port forwarding/network issues as you mentioned, but second IMO is not dynamic lighting. Keep in mind this is just my opinion based on people I know/use FG and you obviously have a better overview but still, I'd say it's the lack of ease to modify things such as character sheets without going into code, the map/images (I've had FG for three years now and I'm still struggling with the map feature) and the lack of options when it comes to dice rolling.

(No offense intended. Just thoughts I felt like sharing. There's a lot of good things about FG too of course).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddavison

I think it is fair to say that we've lost some potential customers & users due to port forwarding and lack of dynamic line of sight. FGU should hopefully bring many of those people back. If we lost you because you really don't like the general interface, then I don't think FGU is going to bring you back.

---

I have to agree with port forwarding part.. FG always worked on my system with no fiddling of port forwarding.. but I can tell you.. if I had to mess with all that FG would have been deleted immediately and I would have moved on to most likely roll20.. but since it worked ok I have bought well over 800.00 of material.. I imagine more than you can think may have moved on due to having to mess with something to get it up and running.

The only reason port forwarding is needed is to host the game locally instead of using some pool of servers in a permanent farm on the Internet. That, of course, means you would only be able to play if there was a live Internet connection and that the server pool is big enough to never cause lagging game play.

So it would be easier to have users connect and use it, but at the expense of obtaining and maintaining a large pool of servers (hardware and staff).

I personally prefer hosting locally and keeping my costs down substantially.

Port forwarding is not all that difficult to achieve manually. Only the outlier very odd cases make this tricky. I agree that not everyone is familiar with the fun of port forwarding as few ever install server software on their computers.

UPnP technology can (mostly) make this as transparent as using a pool of servers. UPnP will have trouble on those odd network configurations where people have chained multiple routers or have an ISP that blocks the port. So it will work for those with typical connections and be trouble with those outlier cases still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xemit

The only reason port forwarding is needed is to host the game locally instead of using some pool of servers in a permanent farm on the Internet. That, of course, means you would only be able to play if there was a live Internet connection and that the server pool is big enough to never cause lagging game play.

So it would be easier to have users connect and use it, but at the expense of obtaining and maintaining a large pool of servers (hardware and staff).

I personally prefer hosting locally and keeping my costs down substantially.

Port forwarding is not all that difficult to achieve manually. Only the outlier very odd cases make this tricky. I agree that not everyone is familiar with the fun of port forwarding as few ever install server software on their computers.

UPnP technology can (mostly) make this as transparent as using a pool of servers. UPnP will have trouble on those odd network configurations where people have chained multiple routers or have an ISP that blocks the port. So it will work for those with typical connections and be trouble with those outlier cases still.

---

In the US, UK, AUS this is mostly true - but for many other countries IP addresses are shared and natted outside of the customers control and port forwarding cannot be done.
I personally believe networking issues is the #1 challenge that needs solving.

I have has issues with the networking over the years, but it is nothing I could not fix with a little fiddling and research. I do agree that the UI is a bit clunky and looks dated. I have to run a double monitor to see all the windows and maps that I need to have open to DM effectivley. That I liked roll20 interface, but not many of the other features. I would love for the new employies to design a new UI that we could load. Iam not talking about the skins, but a new UI that looks more sleek and modern. Now that being said, what I like and what is needed or nessassary are different things. If creating a UI is too time intensive, scrap the idea. I would rather work toward Unity than retrofitting wasting time and effort retrofitting the current FG. All in all, it is clunky but reliable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Batman13

If creating a UI is too time intensive, scrap the idea..

---

FG needs a new UI. The only current saving grace it has is the ability to mold the UI by the user which d20pro and roll20 lack.

A bunch of the rulesets have 'themes' but none really re-work the UI like such: https://imgur.com/zpg2iAc. It however isn't an excuse to not retrofit the default UI rather than relying on the 'community' to develop it like a set a of crutches.

It doesn't need a new UI, and no matter how many times you say it, there are many of us who disagree. Are there aspects that need improvement? Sure. But I (and others) like the fact that the UI is not like a normal, sterile Windows (or Mac) UI. We use it for fantasy roleplaying, and the different UI helps that suspension of disbelief. The skinning abilities could use some improvement so those who want to play a SCI-FI or modern game can do so easier,

I do thank you, Ken for all your hard work for the community.

Bidmarn, I think Ken and I are saying that we would like to have multiple UI options not just skins. I am in no way lobbying for FG to completely drom the current interface. I would like to have more modern, sleaker options. The software is powerful, but looks veryoutdates. That can push many casual gamers away. I know when I first saw FG, I thought it looked like it looked like a video game from the late 90's/early 2000's. That is not nessassarly bad. I love Baulders Gate, but is is also not attractive to many newer players whos cant get past their inital impressions.

It is that 'antique' look that helps reinforce the fantasy aspect, IMO. And I remain in disagreement. The trend in OSs these days is to remove the OS UI or only have it show up if you cursor up to the top for the menu, e.g. Many are using applications in full-screen mode. I acknowledge that there are UI features we need that don't affect the visual component (why can't you click in the space off the thumb of a scrollbar to move the window contents up/down one window-height, e.g. in some windows), but do decry that it is completely unapproachable or imply that our own personal tastes in interface must be inflicted upon everyone is over the top, IMO. FG was designed for fantasy use, as its very name indicates. The fact that it can easily be used for other genres is a tribute to its strengths, but please do not inflict some sterile, modern-looking UI on the application.

I have never understood why radial menus, for example, are so bothersome. They are much more attractive than the text-based contextual menus that are the alternative. They DO need to be modified to provide for more than 8 selection options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bidmaron

I have never understood why radial menus, for example, are so bothersome. They are much more attractive than the text-based contextual menus that are the alternative. They DO need to be modified to provide for more than 8 selection options.

---

Oh, I don't know - eight is about the right number of options for one "set" - design theory says a "good" number is 5 to 9 options on a menu / in a set - any less and you're wasting space (assuming you have more, of course) and any more that 8-9 and the human mind shies away from "too many choices".

And its very easy to have submenus as one or more of the eight choices.

But yes, I don't think the UI needs to be "updated" either - it serves it purpose, it does add to the "feel" of the RPG, and even when playing a "modern" game a simple skin change is all you need to help with the "suspension of disbelief" - check out the CoC Ruleset skin, or even the DORCore, for some examples.

Remember: "new" does not necessarily mean "better", nor "different" mean "inferior". Nor do I believe that the interface is turning away players - they many be using that as an excuse (if you were to ask them) but I think you'll find it more likely that their "wham, bam, thank you mam" attitude towards *computer* rpgs is way more likely the reason - ie unrealistic expectations. I've *never* had anyone turn away from the platform over the UI, but I have had people complain bitterly that they can't get in a "pick-up game" when ever they want - but that's not what Tabletop RPGs are about.

Finally don't forget that but "current" windows and mac UI designs can be said to do the same thing (ie turn people off).

Just my $0.02 worth (from over 35 years of gaming experience) :)