I just realized that this hasnt been mentioned or discussed in anyway!! I think we are gonna have to keep using Discord. I was hoping for an integrated solution :(
Apparently, Roll20 voice is horrible anyway, so I'm not convinced that DDB would be able to pull it off anyway. I always just use Discord as default anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
When developing something new, it is generally wise to focus on first creating the minimum viable product - the simplest version of the product which accomplishes the task you want to actually perform. Focusing on your core product, instead of the bells and whistles, ensures you actually have a product, instead of an endless stream of tech issues and delays.
Neither the VTT nor Maps need integrated voice chat - as is mentioned above, there are other systems which do that fine and which people are already familiar and comfortable with. No use reinventing the wheel for something which would be a neat addition—but an addition nonetheless.
Plus, it is not like group voice chat is all that easy to make - mechanisms for reducing audio feedback and ensuring there is not just a cacophony of noise are clearly difficult - even Zoom, Teams, and Discord audio, the biggest names in the audio chat business, have some problems.
No sense in Wizards trying to get into that game right from the start - they want headlines like “Great new VTT from Wizards” not “Great new VTT from Wizards, marred by a laughably bad voice system.”
I'm honestly fine with it not having it's own in-built voice/ video system. A lot of people already have their social groups and contacts on Discord, Skype or Steam, not to mention a bunch of other options. Most players would be checking those for notifications, coordination, etc as it is, so why suddenly shift comm channels? I'm just as happy for the devs to focus on the VTT's function as a visual realization of things instead of cramming in redundant systems.
When developing something new, it is generally wise to focus on first creating the minimum viable product - the simplest version of the product which accomplishes the task you want to actually perform. Focusing on your core product, instead of the bells and whistles, ensures you actually have a product, instead of an endless stream of tech issues and delays.
Neither the VTT nor Maps need integrated voice chat - as is mentioned above, there are other systems which do that fine and which people are already familiar and comfortable with. No use reinventing the wheel for something which would be a neat addition—but an addition nonetheless.
Plus, it is not like group voice chat is all that easy to make - mechanisms for reducing audio feedback and ensuring there is not just a cacophony of noise are clearly difficult - even Zoom, Teams, and Discord audio, the biggest names in the audio chat business, have some problems.
No sense in Wizards trying to get into that game right from the start - they want headlines like “Great new VTT from Wizards” not “Great new VTT from Wizards, marred by a laughably bad voice system.”
Maps is not a VTT. It is on route to becoming one but at this current stage it is not an all-inclusive VTT. It has no DM options, it has no text or voice. It is just a map with a few extra features and nothing more.
It has never been advertised as a VTT or replacement for such.
You will be required to use other services in addition to Maps to get the full VTT experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
discord is free and effective. In terms of features they should add Voice is way down the list. still need things like encounters merging with it and having initiative order displaced on the same screen. the main bells I'm hoping for are things like different settings for darkvision/bight sight in dark areas
Having tried using Roll20s voice option, I firmly endorse Maps not bothering.
I echo this so hard Ventrilo, TeamSpeak, Discord, Mumble, Skype/Microsoft teams, or even zoom are better options than integrating voice chat with another program ever. If foundry ever offered, i still would not use it as it splits there focus and offer another breakpoint in the software.
Wizards is coming into this nearly 20 years after the oldest VTT They have to compete against Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, The Foundry, Maptools, D20Pro. All of those VTT's did not start with features like integrated character sheets, Sound and spell effects, Vision/movement blocking, Dynamic lighting and fog of war. It took them years of development and testing to get all the nice bells and whistles. So, we are going to have to wait while Wizards reinvents the wheel or convinces someone from the other developers to jump ship.
The need to focus on the basics token / character sheet integration, they need strict token ownership, drawing tools is a sore spot for because they gave us a free hand tool and not something we could really use like AOE Templates Which i find odd because they have a shape tool in the Fog of War menu. I can't believe they did not cannibalize the code for that and make the basic template shapes.
So just fyi, for my test run I have used Avrae to integrate discord with D&D Beyond and my campaign and have maps shared with the group in discord. Although I don't think it would take a great leap for a collaboration integration with maps as a channel feed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just realized that this hasnt been mentioned or discussed in anyway!! I think we are gonna have to keep using Discord. I was hoping for an integrated solution :(
Apparently, Roll20 voice is horrible anyway, so I'm not convinced that DDB would be able to pull it off anyway. I always just use Discord as default anyway.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
When developing something new, it is generally wise to focus on first creating the minimum viable product - the simplest version of the product which accomplishes the task you want to actually perform. Focusing on your core product, instead of the bells and whistles, ensures you actually have a product, instead of an endless stream of tech issues and delays.
Neither the VTT nor Maps need integrated voice chat - as is mentioned above, there are other systems which do that fine and which people are already familiar and comfortable with. No use reinventing the wheel for something which would be a neat addition—but an addition nonetheless.
Plus, it is not like group voice chat is all that easy to make - mechanisms for reducing audio feedback and ensuring there is not just a cacophony of noise are clearly difficult - even Zoom, Teams, and Discord audio, the biggest names in the audio chat business, have some problems.
No sense in Wizards trying to get into that game right from the start - they want headlines like “Great new VTT from Wizards” not “Great new VTT from Wizards, marred by a laughably bad voice system.”
I'm honestly fine with it not having it's own in-built voice/ video system. A lot of people already have their social groups and contacts on Discord, Skype or Steam, not to mention a bunch of other options. Most players would be checking those for notifications, coordination, etc as it is, so why suddenly shift comm channels? I'm just as happy for the devs to focus on the VTT's function as a visual realization of things instead of cramming in redundant systems.
Good point
Maps is not a VTT. It is on route to becoming one but at this current stage it is not an all-inclusive VTT. It has no DM options, it has no text or voice. It is just a map with a few extra features and nothing more.
It has never been advertised as a VTT or replacement for such.
You will be required to use other services in addition to Maps to get the full VTT experience.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Having tried using Roll20s voice option, I firmly endorse Maps not bothering.
discord is free and effective. In terms of features they should add Voice is way down the list. still need things like encounters merging with it and having initiative order displaced on the same screen. the main bells I'm hoping for are things like different settings for darkvision/bight sight in dark areas
They could just partner with Discord since it seems to work quite well.
I echo this so hard Ventrilo, TeamSpeak, Discord, Mumble, Skype/Microsoft teams, or even zoom are better options than integrating voice chat with another program ever. If foundry ever offered, i still would not use it as it splits there focus and offer another breakpoint in the software.
Wizards is coming into this nearly 20 years after the oldest VTT They have to compete against Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, The Foundry, Maptools, D20Pro. All of those VTT's did not start with features like integrated character sheets, Sound and spell effects, Vision/movement blocking, Dynamic lighting and fog of war. It took them years of development and testing to get all the nice bells and whistles. So, we are going to have to wait while Wizards reinvents the wheel or convinces someone from the other developers to jump ship.
The need to focus on the basics token / character sheet integration, they need strict token ownership, drawing tools is a sore spot for because they gave us a free hand tool and not something we could really use like AOE Templates Which i find odd because they have a shape tool in the Fog of War menu. I can't believe they did not cannibalize the code for that and make the basic template shapes.
So just fyi, for my test run I have used Avrae to integrate discord with D&D Beyond and my campaign and have maps shared with the group in discord. Although I don't think it would take a great leap for a collaboration integration with maps as a channel feed.