I think the Encounter Tracker in the Maps VTT is a better encounter tracker than the Encounter Builder for managing ongoing encounters.
Conversely, the Encounter Builder is a better UX format for planning and running encounters, despite it's mechanical limitations.
Solution: Modularise the Encounter Tracker from the VTT, and present it in a full page format as the replacement for the Encounter Builder.
I am an in-person DM primarily, using 5.24e. However, I'm a digital native (despite my age) and I prefer to use digital tools to track things like initiative, hit points, etc. My players prefer digital rolling off their character sheets, in person, so we have a full log of rolls. I also project the map onto the table, and place physical minis. In order to use the Maps VTT, I put every combatant's token on the map, then hide them all. Just so that I can get them into the encounter tracker.
I don't need the Map itself. I could just project an image instead. But I prefer the Maps Encounter Tracker because it's a superior tool once the combat is starting. However, I still find it easier to use the Encounter Builder to plan the combat because of it's format.
VTT Encounter Tracker
Pros
Finding and adding tokens for monsters is quick enough.
The ability to add a new creatures in a way that retains the ability to roll off their stat blocks, quickly and seamlessly.
The abiliity to mark friendly tokens.
Grouping and splitting is easy.
Adding groups of mobs after a fight has begun (reinforcements) is easy.
You can rename individual creatures.
You can actually "end" an encounter.
You can roll with advantage/disadvantage in initiative.
The "Difficulty" gives no indication of XP, the specific method described in the DMG, so I can't design an encounter and see how close to breaching a budget I am.
The stat blocks are 2024 format and details.
Tokens can be filtered by what I have access to.
Cons
The entire tracker is 450 pixels wide. My three screens are each 3840x2160, meaning that tracking an encounter can only ever take up less than 1/8th of the screen.
Viewing a monster's statblock in a way that allows me to roll from it requires me to hide the Initiative Order, meaning that it's multiple clicks to get to another NPCs statblock. Meaning I can't read the statblock and refer to things like player HP or NPC AC etc without leaving the statblock.
You can't change the Iniative order mid-fight.
When adding monsters to the encounter, they appear on the map until you can hide them.
Encounter Builder
Pros
When designing an encounter it has the CR and XP visible per monster.
It uses the entire screen.
You can save the encounter without having to go through the slow process of making a new map for the next encounter.
Statblocks fill 70% of the screen.
Statblocks are visible while the initiative order and all combatant's hit points are visible.
There are more filters for planning, such as "Movement Type" and "Has Lair"
Without the map, listing and selecting encounters is faster.
Cons
The XP calculations are in 2014.
The stat blocks are 2014 appearance.
The stat blocks don't list Initiative bonus.
The stat blocks only list saves that differ from the base abilities, so the log shows "Strength Check" not "Strength Save"
Monsters cannot be filtered to just what I own.
When mid fight, adding monsters (beyond just a placeholder) is clunky and time consuming.
What I want, as a DM Tier Subscriber, is a tool in the format of the Encounter Builder, full screen, independent of a map, with the functionality of the Maps Combat Tracker. This shouldn't be a hard ask, if the VTT's code was already modular to begin with. We live in a world of internal NuGet/npm packages. Modularise the code, and give us a better planning UI, that in-person DM's can also use to run combat.
Additionally, using the same code would allow seamless ability to import planned encounters into the Maps VTT, so that you can plan in one and play in the other.
Controversial Opinion:
Solution: Modularise the Encounter Tracker from the VTT, and present it in a full page format as the replacement for the Encounter Builder.
I am an in-person DM primarily, using 5.24e. However, I'm a digital native (despite my age) and I prefer to use digital tools to track things like initiative, hit points, etc. My players prefer digital rolling off their character sheets, in person, so we have a full log of rolls. I also project the map onto the table, and place physical minis. In order to use the Maps VTT, I put every combatant's token on the map, then hide them all. Just so that I can get them into the encounter tracker.
I don't need the Map itself. I could just project an image instead. But I prefer the Maps Encounter Tracker because it's a superior tool once the combat is starting. However, I still find it easier to use the Encounter Builder to plan the combat because of it's format.
VTT Encounter Tracker
Pros
Cons
Encounter Builder
Pros
Cons
What I want, as a DM Tier Subscriber, is a tool in the format of the Encounter Builder, full screen, independent of a map, with the functionality of the Maps Combat Tracker. This shouldn't be a hard ask, if the VTT's code was already modular to begin with. We live in a world of internal NuGet/npm packages. Modularise the code, and give us a better planning UI, that in-person DM's can also use to run combat.
Additionally, using the same code would allow seamless ability to import planned encounters into the Maps VTT, so that you can plan in one and play in the other.