Thanks aliasMask, and sorry if my reply had some tinge to it. The lady I'm about to address below kind of brought that out of me
smaudet2: You'll have to wait and see then. Personally, RPTools will never fade. Too many good people behind it. As bad as we're painted out to be, we know who the real good guys are.
Lee: Sorry to hear that, we were always ready to make it work for you, but you never come back to us beyond a couple of posts. Thank you for backing us back then. FWIW.
This is too funny. sorry, to laugh, but this is getting ridiculous.
Before going into this, we declare that you win by virtue of you likely having the last word. We won't be troubling RPTools more than we've already had, regardless of how we think of your opinions.
KaylaKaze wrote:You said right on that page announcing Mote-X, right at the very top "The free version of Mote will now enter maintenance mode, shepherding it, with the community of users' help, in getting it to an ever more stable state. This is not to say nothing new will be added to the free version, because we will do so when needed, but the primary objective is to offer a stable application to grow our community with." Anyone familiar with software knows what "maintenance mode" means. It's what MapTool has been in for the last several years.
Sigh. Did you miss the part about adding new stuff "when needed"? It's in the supporting statement to the first, if you didn't catch that they should be read together, along with the 3rd statement. Paraphrasing it for you, the code will be brought to stability by not introducing destabilizing new features into the mix; new features will still make it in, but not before Mote becomes usable to any type of user. Unlike in MapTool, it won't have a "feature freeze". Did we even say "FEATURE FREEZE
" anywhere? So, once again, you are wrong in your interpretation and how you choose to react to it.
KaylaKaze wrote:As far as trying to challenge Roll20 with Mote-X, the problem is more than just ease of use. You need a non-download, full web-based solution if you want a piece of that action. You seem to agree that it really is just hosted MapTool but want to wrap it in marketing speak to make it sound like more and then want to chastise me for saying what it really is. And I have no problem with you charging for a product. What I have a problem with is breaking dozens of KS promises and then trying to sell other people's work (ie MapTool) as your own by adding a few bells and whistles.
No, we (Idle Ideas) don't need a "non-download, full web based solution" aka a carbon copy Roll20. Only someone without a clue would think that to win against an opponent is to start from scratch and do exactly what the giants have been doing successfully for years. We are quite confident that the answer lies in an alternative, and we have faith in the alternative we described, not that we have any inclination to become as big as they (Roll20) are.
Roll20 is still a client-server scheme with the browser being the client. They hoard all the "magic" that goes behind rendering a view of the game session all on their side, triggering browsers to update, and the cost they pay for that is the limits they set to keep down costs and maximize profit; the same limits that prevent others from accessing their "advanced" features and "dev" servers. A downloadable, unlicensed application gives full control to the user, and all the power that Roll20 cannot completely give to its users, much less to all of them. If you take time-out from oozing lava, and put on your developer cap and start drafting the architecture, you wouldn't be missing so many points, not least of which, we were talking in dev speak, and were not marketing anything (maybe that's the problem here).
While you have that cap on, you can also think about how wrong a picture "hosted MapTool" is. Is it your understanding we'll be putting the MapTool binary server-side, and churn instances out for people who want it? Think again.
How hard is it for you to comprehend what we've already told you here and on several other posts? Mote, as it is, as it will be, is now in the public domain, and will always be free, with the source code to be delivered at a future date, though we doubt the RPTools team has any need for it, not when they are more than capable of writing more elegant solutions of their own. Mote-X will eventually be its own unique VTT; its source code will share nothing with MapTool, once we're through. While getting to that point, users who opt in early will see it steadily shed MT aspects for something we put in to replace it.
The key word is "opt", some will want to be privy early on, some will wait until everything is done, but this is always a CHOICE. And last time we checked our "marketing", Mote-X is what we were "selling", not Mote. It is obvious to anyone who deliberates over what we've said to our community that we will submit our work to scrutiny, as we've said that top supporters will have free / easier access to our work for the whole period. It is the relation of their anecdotal experiences, and not the sort of con-game rep you keep accusing us of, that our project will operate under. We've said this 2, 3, and maybe 4 times to you already, but, apparently, you conveniently glazed your eyes over these points.
And please, for the sake of the upfront respect members of this forum have for people they don't know, go over our KS and see that we have
kept our promises to the goals we were funded for
. It's obvious that you love to skim through stuff without much deliberation, and that's fine if it's just you, but it's not when you're misrepresenting other people, especially when we're still actively working on the project. We'd understand if we upped and walked away with ****loads of cash, and not delivering anything, but in this case, aren't you overreacting to us still at work, holding about ZERO bucks in our hands?
If someone becomes interested in the Mote project after 4(?), or 5 years of waiting on MapTool, this can hardly be considered "poaching", or am I wrong? What business is it of yours anyway? You didn't back us, we didn't knock on your door to force you to support us, you still have MapTool, and we gave you Mote in all of its PROMISED Phase 1 "glory"/infamy. What more do you want us to do? OVERDELIVER
?! Okay, sure, for the sake of argument, but how FAR? All the way to the last phase, maybe? For the funding you think we got, but never did? Is that your idea of promises kept? Oh no, not in our books, ma'am.
So, once again, Kayla, we ask you give things a little thought, preferably over a period longer than 10 seconds, before you spew.
KaylaKaze wrote:And then, you've just admitted that there are parts of the features that were promised as part of the KS that you're intentionally holding back so that you can sell. And you're wondering why I have a problem with this?
Of course, I'm wondering about the things that get your panties in a bunch. What part of doing as we will with code we wrote and own that you find so offensive? You didn't write anything, none of it is RPTools', and last time we checked, b87 was under Apache 2.0, so the integration involved for our ORIGINAL source to work with the MapTool code still attributes to us, to do as we will. I have a BIG problem about your habit of taking what we say completely out of context. You're not even quoting us correctly
idle_ideas wrote:A part of the reason for the "sparsity" you find in Mote is that we've written and reserved aspects of the project, for Mote-X, both because we never got support for these to be put in Mote, and because releasing these be the best way to gain support and sustain interest in the project. These have no direct tie-in to MapTool, will exist as unique features of Mote-X, and were completely written by our team, so I really don't see how or why this offends you so much.
Paraphrasing for you again, since you seem to have difficulty following long sentences: We have reserved written code that never got support to be put in Mote. Big Hint: We weren't funded for it during the first KS
. We will use these features to drive interest in supporting Idle Ideas. We need this support to finally be able to work full time and finish the project, because, try as hard as we might, we can't photosynthesize, and our families like having us at home, rather than out on the grind.
Again, we haven't gone anywhere, and we're committed to seeing these projects get out there. If people think this something worth getting behind, we happily accept their support, and will work hard to deliver. I don't know where you're from, but that's what most can call a fair deal.
While the whole idea may stick to your craw, no one can say we exploited source code that was made freely available under a commercially friendly license like Apache 2.0. People who support the spirit of licenses like Apache aren't really supporting it when they "feel bad" when someone comes along and takes it to a commercial level. These are people who can't see that the commercial opportunities provided to creators will allow them to give something of value back, and thrive while doing so, so that they can make more good stuff. So, if you're one of these half-supporters, you're not really an "Apache" but a "GPLer", so save your self-righteousness and protests for when RPTools publishes their stuff under GPL-like conditions, and someone comes along and makes a copy of it the way we did. Again, you could one-up and join their team. We acknowledge that they're very good, even better than we are, and the new volunteers all sound like eager beavers. It's your fight to lose! The only takeaway we have is that we're more likely able to work consistently on ours, and with more diligence. All the players here worth their salt have cushy day jobs that they won't drop just to please people like you. Though we can easily be proven wrong, RPTools could indeed get a shot in the arm and work to compete aggressively. The recent verbiage around here seems to point to it.
That's your VTT take, and it is indeed plausible. No one's stopping you from correcting your mistake about relying on us to deliver everything on the KS without checking how much we actually got funded. You can always write the VTT we, and the rest of the planet that didn't back our KS, so cruelly prevented you from doing. But wait, you still could have wrote your VTT regardless. It's not our fault you foisted this notions on us to bear without our knowledge, and without clarifying some facts for yourself. You have indeed misconstrued everything by the demonizing of our work, and getting angry over it.
The point you seem to be missing, be it intentional or not, is that to get from point A to point B by the method of route C, the parameters never change. Point A being MapTool, point B being Mote-X, and route C being funded, full-time development. Whether provided by the KS, or accumulated through the purchase of Mote-X and related services, the figure at the bottom line does not change. It is still needed, for everything we've specifically itemized so far, and more. A fact you choose to ignore. Idle Ideas didn't win the PowerBall, you know. It's not even sure that the idea will even succeed, much less turn a profit and what we'll do with it if we do, and you're already s*****ng on it. Talk about being paranoid.
The whole point of the Mote Project was Lee's idea that while the volunteer route was great in producing MapTool, how about getting to "2.0" through funded (yes, non-profit) development? Unfortunately, he's a sneeze away right now from being completely unable to walk, so his ideals and vision doesn't really count right now, at least not for the team that picked this project up in his absence. Plans needed to be changed for the benefit of people actually doing the work, get over it.
If there was anything we over-delivered on, it is that we kept working on this without getting anything from the KS. I don't know about you, but some people are willing to call that commitment. We think you're crazy to think we should keep at this, pro-bono
, indefinitely. We're not RPTools, and RPTools will never put up the services that we plan to make, and still stay who they are. They can obviously make such a gift to their community with their eyes closed, with one hand tied behind their back, and only two fingers typing, all done over a "month of weekends". Heck, they could have done it years ago. But why didn't they? Why did they just rely on a register server, manual port forwarding, and UPnP, when there were so many who want to adopt and love their tool, but couldn't get it to work? They obviously know this was needed, so, again, why? Someone has to end up footing the bill, right? We know that, they know that, and you know that. Once up, someone has to maintain it too. We all know that. Who'll be the stupid wart that will do it for free, much worse, with money right out of his pockets? That's just insane. Our last names aren't Buffet.
You can keep being indignant and all, but the truth is, there are
people interested in what we're doing; the letters we've been receiving are proof enough of that. All of these people don't even mind if it's just Mote that will be running through the servers; all they want is something better than Roll20, while still being hassle-free. Did we say, "Great! Now throw money at us. Immediately." We didn't. We said that they should wait until the 1st Mote-X and the services are out, test it, and if they like it, they can then give us permission to keep their money. Why does that not sound remotely fair to you? Who do you think we'll end up listening to? And how is this different if we do a KS? Wait, we ARE doing a KS for the services. Who'd have thought...
KaylaKaze wrote:You've already let your supporters down. You did that back in September when there was radio silence for over a month... a month when you were supposed to have been putting out your product. While we understand the circumstances surrounding that situation, it was still a let down. If you look back at the conversations from then, you'd see I was the one standing up for you guys, though. And then the constant release promises and delays started coming, and I started getting cynical that you'd ever actually release anything. And then, when you finally do release, it's so overwhelmingly disappointing that the only thing I could even think of as being remotely close (from a hype vs payoff standpoint) was the original ending of Mass Effect 3 or anything Peter Molyneux has been involved with in the past several years.
....And I may have been overly harsh as to the quality of what HAS been done. They sound like decent additions (and the macro editor does seem especially solid) but when compared to the foundation of promises/lies that Mote was originally supposedly launched from, they're extremely underwhelming.
We keep coming back to the notion that you somehow want everything to automagically happen, having your cake and eating it too. For all of what you did when you went to "do something else", the glaring point here is that you have all these unfounded expectations from us, but you didn't back us, and now your giving us this?
But thank you for standing up for us back then. Personally, I didn't see it transpire because I was busy on something else. But if there was anyone we owe anything to, it's the group that were slated for that month. We personally reached out to these supporters to apologize, and unlike you, they were more forgiving. Since that time, I don't think anyone, beyond you, can fault our effort. As someone who was not even part of the closed beta, you can't be serious in thinking we have an obligation to you during that period, do you? Yes, we want to please you, and people like you, but being obligated? I don't think so. While we appreciate the kind of support you gave, the only thing we were serious about that time was our business relationship with our backers, as cold as that may sound. Last time we checked, we have kept to the schedule most of the time, so sorry again to those who've already forgiven us for missing a month.
And to keep kicking a dead horse, if you expected Phase 5 results from Phase 1 level funding, then yes, we completely agree that you should be monumentally disappointed with the output, but please keep it to yourself until you can equate our work with what we actually had to work with. If you're able to do that, and the results still don't shine a wee twinkle in your eye then, honestly, you're the only one, at the moment, to say so. (Team member 1: But wait a minute, there was NO funding... idle_ideas: sssshhhh.).
You should know by now why the delays happened, right? Good, I don't need to explain that part. If it makes you happy, we're still waiting on those collaborations, so you just might get your wish of us sinking in the end.
KaylaKaze wrote:And for those that don't read dev speak, that up there means "Yeah, we're not releasing the source code."
(skimming again, eh?)
"Up there", in our reply to RPTroll, we said we will. We only get to be called liars if we never do, but you'd have to wait until all of us in Idle Ideas are dead before you get the opportunity to do so. Oh yeah, but you already did, didn't you? Oh well, my loss. That's 2, and just on this post. I have half the mind to ask the team to stretch the delivery out till we're 50.
Tabletop enthusiasts are generally smart enough to know a skunk when they smell one. Feel free to bring your cause to them, since it's them you need to save from our evil designs, correct? Possessed with such enlightenment unheard of since the time of Jesus, I'm sure the flock will veer away from us wolves in no time.
Weeeeeell, I've built my wall of text and will let it stand to service anyone who comes along and wants to take a piss on it. As a lady keyboard warrior myself, I just couldn't stand being judged before I am through with what I'm doing. Sorry gents of the forums, this is how women get back when they find another woman with standing hair, baring fangs and claws at them. Well, I hope I'm right in thinking that Kayla is a lady's name. If you're a dude, dude, then sorry for the b******g, man.
It's obvious that a lot here think we're "villains" when held in contrast to the RPTools spirit. We never wanted to claim the high road, not after what we've been through. So we accept this as something we cannot change.
They say the worth of a person's life can only judged when looking back at its entirety. The same can be said for a work in progress. Nobody on our side is perfect, but we're doing our best to finish what we started. Life gives opportunity for redemption, and everyone is supposed to have that right. We're still alive, but you've already killed us in your head. We're done here.
Thanks to everyone else for being gracious about my rant. It's the last one ever, and that's a promise