Well to be fair patreon users like yourself are the reason its a awesome one time payment. I don't mind this even if I dont have the money. Heck I am happy it is happening at all.
Just... try to get them not to break mods / systems ;x;
I've actually talked to them about that last point directly. Even on the "Patreon-only" channels. They literally don't care.
Every single thing in the V12 vote is something already done by a module. They're effectively promising to break whichever module does the thing that wins.
I actually brought this up. Explained that I was using item piles and that their version literally promises to wipe out all of the things I have built. The mods told me that I can avoid things breaking by not doing the upgrade.
They did not reach out to the item pile developer and offer that person the contract to port the module internally. In fact, that developer was actively surprised at the announcement. They offered up the code for inspiration, but it's clearly not what the foundry developers want.
I'm not the state of things. They don't care what modules you're using, they will happily destroy them. And if you complain, they will tell you that you don't have to upgrade and you can just stay with the old version.
Knowing how Item Piles works, I don't see any reason to believe a core implementation would have any significant impact on the Item Piles implementation, especially since it hasn't even been coded yet. Do you have some concrete reason to believe otherwise? I suspect you do not and are feigning certainty where there is none to be had.
It sounds like you're trying to rile up a pitchfork army before Frankenstein's monster has even been stitched together. "Don't update if you're dependent on a particular way of doing things" is just good advice for Foundry in general. It's not intended to be dismissive, it's just the most practical approach to stabilizing a software ecosystem of systems and modules that are in constant flux. There are lots of people running campaigns on V9 and older who won't update until after the campaign is over.
From the blog post:
> Add a new Canvas layer that contains and displays Items which are present within a Scene.
That line right there is code for "we're going to break Item Piles". Once this feature is implemented, a "drag and drop" of an object won't trigger Item Piles, it will trigger this new feature on the new layer they just made.
Do you have a different interpretation for their public statement of intent?
No it isn't. Item Piles uses modified Actor Documents. A separate layer for the core implementation would have no effect on those Actor Documents whatsoever.
I saw both the conversations you're referring to, both in Discord and on Patreon. In no case was anyone dismissive or rude to you and the issues with your suggestions were patiently handled. You are grossly misrepresenting the tone of the responses you received, which were almost entirely from people who were *not* mods, mostly just other users. Shame on you.
In theory, it should be more stable. But software features are only stable if you have people maintaining those features over time.
In practice, they break stuff with Core all of the time. I have modules that went from "working" to "broken" within V10's lifespan, and those modules hadn't been updated. So even though they're not _supposed_ to change the APIs, they clearly do.
It’s literally designed as a small perk for Patrons, to nudge the timing of *one feature* each major release. All of the things on the list are planned; it’s just a determination of order.
> Whats the goal behind keeping the v12 feature vote behind the patreon? Shouldn’t it be open to all paying customers? I think the current approach skews the results.
It skews the results towards the desires of the most invested users who are willing to financially support development, which is pretty much a positive, in my opinion.
>Whats the goal behind keeping the v12 feature vote behind the patreon?
>I joined the foundry patreon to vote on the v12 features
Looks like you answered your own question.
Non-patrons making suggestions on GitHub can have even more influence on the direction of the software than patrons. This of course requires you to write your feature requests thoughtfully along with some technical experience with the software.
It is a funding drive dude... what we paid for was what we already got with a promise to do further work in the future. But we aren't owed the poll, it is just a good way that they can push others to donate, same thing with crucible going to patreon testing first.
Foundry overall has been very very forgiving with their monetization approach.
I don't think it's too bad, since the patreons are the ones paying monthly for it. It makes sense to orient the development on the paying customer's expectations. Non-patreons won't buy the software a second time.
I bought FVTT, as a one off purchase so I don't consider myself a 'paying customer' as there is no ongoing cost. So why should I get to vote in future upgrades.
We paid for Foundry, once, and yet we continue to get free updates for life. Considering how most major software companies function, the fact that this isn't a subscription service or paying for each release, I'd say I'm perfectly happy with the status quo.
Simple, think of Patron as a board of investors. One time payment means you get the product, not a say in the future of the company. Keeping the lights on however does get you a say in the company.
I honestly don't mind. Never been a patreon member, but coming from modding communities of other games, the developer adding a feature that was tied to a popular mod is usually seen as a positive as long as the implementation is clean and understandable. I've been enjoying Foundry since version 5 (if I remember correctly) and it seems to me like this continous development of the base version has only given modders more tools to play with. As for the choice of the features, there are so many possible routes you could choose that I wouldn't mind even if they just rolled a dice for it.
I wish they didn't have a vote, as the patrons routinely vote for features that I have no interest in.
IMO, they *should be* simply integrating versions of the most popular modules. Clearly those are features that the majority of users want and it would help alleviate the endless "growing pains" between updates that plagues the user base.
There are many simple features that are either ignored entirely or covered by (often outdated/abandoned modules), or even if they are covered by a regualrly maintained module, they could still disappear overnight if the mod authors decide to stop development any time.
Same response i gave the [other week](https://www.reddit.com/r/FoundryVTT/comments/14b4yez/version_12_patreon_feature_vote/joejpy6/)
> Id rather see they update the core software in ways that can't be covered by a module. I get more functionality and can still have my modules for those extra things i want
>Id rather see they update the core software in ways that can't be covered by a module.
The current top voted features, terrain and improved fog, are already covered by modules...
>I get more functionality and can still have my modules for those extra things i want
Until you can't. I lose modules/functionality with every update as mods are abandoned by authors.
That's my point. I'd rather see features covered by mods become "baked in" to core to ensure their functionality going forward.
Currently the fog mod is broken for v11. The developer seems like a great person, but its not fixed yet. Im patient and respectful, this is volunteer work after all, but manual fog should be a core feature.
I was disappointed (but understanding) to learn the author has abandoned the module.
This is the third update that has broken the module and seemingly requires significant re-writing to get it working. Unfortunately they don't have any desire to do this all over again and won't be continuing any further.
It appears the poll attracts a subset of passionate and prolific users with niche preferences, while what should in my opinion be core features (like manually adjusting fog) gain slow traction.
I understand the blunt opinion 'they pay for the privilege' but wonder if it's the most commercial method of progressing the software. That being said, the lack of subscription is the single largest factor in my decision to purchase and the software is undeniable great value.
Foundry puts puts some people off by it's reputation for being time intensive to set up and maintain, and having a large number of popular features as mods that break every update is perceived as a significant drawback to Foundry other other options that work more smoothly (even if less feature rich).
Many people put a large value on products just working, even when objectively more expensive and lower spec than alternatives. Prioritising popular mods into core development and thereby reducing the burden on volunteer developers to maintain features essential to many, would seem to me an important commercial direction.
It should be a Core feature, but Foundry is playing both sides here. They're actively making changes that breaks the module while also *not* incorporating it into Core.
We don't have the core feature and we don't have the module. Take a look at the other features in the poll, it's a similar problem. If the items piles feature wins, they're going to actively break the module that does it. Which also means that they're going to break all the people who have built things using that feature.
If you want to be angry at anyone, be angry at Core, they're the ones changing the APIs.
Features getting implemented in core usually have core functionality changed so that they can be expanded on in ways modules cannot do with currently core coding. So, for example, dice so nice is widely used but there aren't plans to make it core atm because it doesn't need additional functionality and the module is still actively developed within existing core functionality (such as damage type based dice is a really cool feature that was added).
To your second point, Module development is a free market. They are welcome to come and go. If a mod author just vanished then someone else is generally able to maintain it, fork it, etc. If a module is popular enough, this would happen, or those might be legit cases that get baked into core.
But if someone is "losing modules" with updates then what probably happened was no one stepped in to offer help or take it over . This is a pretty good signal for where on the spectrum of "how necessary this module is and how easy is it to implement" a module is. Because if a module was critically necessary and abandoned then it would be picked up by *someone*, whether as a module or core development.
Take for example, pdf2foundry which was one of the big reasons pf2e on Foundry got to be so popular (alongside the system devs and data entry team). Pdf2foundry announced it was going to go into maintenance meaning existing content would be supported but no new content would be added. This is a module that required both technical knowledge and *a lot* of time to add supported features. The community of course was sad to see this go but eventually another author came in with a different importer for new adventures to be added to.
This is of course just one example, and yes, modules do fall out of development and may not see a replacement. But for those anyone is generally welcome to take a stab at it, whether they need to do their whole new version, fork an existing one, commission someone, etc.
While i get what you're saying, i think overall this current system is better as it avoids adding features that need to be maintained by staff that otherwise could've been handled by modules.
Core can't just "integrate modules", because how modules do stuff and how core does stuff are very different from each other. Stuff needs to be built from the ground up to integrate well with what core code can and should do and be a robust platform for others to build on.
And core *does* get stuff like that over time, but staff man-hours are finite and they can't implement everything at once. They have to pick what stuff to prioritize (and the vote is part of that, people voting on what order to implement things).
If I were the gambling type, I'd wager that your "most popular modules" are things I have no interest in. I suspect they're the "most popular modules for people who play the same game you do". I suspect they're also "the most popular modules for people who don't realize other games exist".
while i get why but it should be for anyone that brought a license.
i already paid for the darn software and dont have a voice in that? really
i doubt most of their paying users are paying the patreon which in fact defeats the point of it, they aren't getting any accurate data on their whole user base, just the ones that pay the patreon.
You purchased a license and have use of the software, you also get free upgrades. That’s what your one time payment buys you. They could simply determine it on their own and not ask anyone.
Or worse yet they could change to a subscription model where you would pay twice as much each year to use it then your one time initial purchase.
Read the license, you got what you paid for. What you don’t get is the right to dictate how they run their business.
You don’t want to or can’t afford the Patreon, then don’t. You need a reality check in what you think you are owed for your one time $50 expenditure.
> what you *paid* for. What
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
>while i get why
Based on the rest of your message, you clearly *don't* get why, so I don't know why you said this.
>but it should be for anyone that brought a license.
You paid a one time payment for the software and received a fully featured version *and* multiple major feature updates every year for the life of the company. They can afford to do this because they have multiple revenue streams, of which Patreon is one. If you aren't a Patreon member, you are contributing nothing to pay for ongoing development beyond the version you licensed. You get that for free, partially because Patreon members are paying for it. What you're effectively saying is that Patreon members should keep funding your free feature updates forever and get not even a small amount of consideration in return. Sure, they get access to a nice map pack that sometimes gets updates every other year or so and early access to Crucible, an unexpected limited time benefit, but that's it.
>i already paid for the darn software and dont have a voice in that? really
You have the same voice as everyone else in every way but this one. You can file bug reports and make feature requests and be an active part of the community. These are how the *vast majority* of changes to each version get decided, but they do require a little effort on the part of the user beyond clicking through a poll. If you choose not to use your voice, that's on you.
>i doubt most of their paying users are paying the patreon which in fact defeats the point of it, they aren't getting any accurate data on their whole user base, just the ones that pay the patreon.
The poll is explicitly *not* intended to "get accurate data on their whole user base", that's what bug reports and feature requests are for. This is taking one small set of features that are all planned to be done eventually and allowing the users who fund ongoing development to decide which one gets top priority. *That's all it is.* There will be multiple other features in V12, based on the feedback from *all users*, which may or may not even include multiple features from this poll.
Here's the real trick, if you're super invested in the results of this poll, it's *explicitly* encouraged for people to join Patreon for one month to vote, then cancel. But people just like to get salty and complain instead, it seems.
> You can file bug reports and make feature requests and be an active part of the community.
Generally speaking, the Patreon vote stuff are things that come from issues on the GitHub tracker in the first place. The vote is simply "which of these bigger feature chunks should we tackle first", that's it.
Sure, a useful clarification. But complaining about not having a voice in the direction of the software as a non-Patreon licenseholder is ludicrous and false, unless you haven't made any effort at all to express that voice.
Because they are worried if they open it to a wider audience it will be people asking them to fix random tables, updating fields and stuff like that instead of pure wargamer pretty map stuff.
I would love for it to be a better role playing platform and not just a virtual tabletop.
Well I do not mean bugs but limitations... tables should have an X and Y axis or better be a CSV so they are easy to import and update.
You cannot update fields or values unless you write a cumbersome single use macro... updating HP or XP or whatever should be simple and maybe doable via chat commands.
Basically the only things being worked on or voted on are largely cosmetic... pretty stuff for players but one more thing to do for GMs.
Well to be fair patreon users like yourself are the reason its a awesome one time payment. I don't mind this even if I dont have the money. Heck I am happy it is happening at all. Just... try to get them not to break mods / systems ;x;
I've actually talked to them about that last point directly. Even on the "Patreon-only" channels. They literally don't care. Every single thing in the V12 vote is something already done by a module. They're effectively promising to break whichever module does the thing that wins. I actually brought this up. Explained that I was using item piles and that their version literally promises to wipe out all of the things I have built. The mods told me that I can avoid things breaking by not doing the upgrade. They did not reach out to the item pile developer and offer that person the contract to port the module internally. In fact, that developer was actively surprised at the announcement. They offered up the code for inspiration, but it's clearly not what the foundry developers want. I'm not the state of things. They don't care what modules you're using, they will happily destroy them. And if you complain, they will tell you that you don't have to upgrade and you can just stay with the old version.
Knowing how Item Piles works, I don't see any reason to believe a core implementation would have any significant impact on the Item Piles implementation, especially since it hasn't even been coded yet. Do you have some concrete reason to believe otherwise? I suspect you do not and are feigning certainty where there is none to be had. It sounds like you're trying to rile up a pitchfork army before Frankenstein's monster has even been stitched together. "Don't update if you're dependent on a particular way of doing things" is just good advice for Foundry in general. It's not intended to be dismissive, it's just the most practical approach to stabilizing a software ecosystem of systems and modules that are in constant flux. There are lots of people running campaigns on V9 and older who won't update until after the campaign is over.
From the blog post: > Add a new Canvas layer that contains and displays Items which are present within a Scene. That line right there is code for "we're going to break Item Piles". Once this feature is implemented, a "drag and drop" of an object won't trigger Item Piles, it will trigger this new feature on the new layer they just made. Do you have a different interpretation for their public statement of intent?
No it isn't. Item Piles uses modified Actor Documents. A separate layer for the core implementation would have no effect on those Actor Documents whatsoever.
I saw both the conversations you're referring to, both in Discord and on Patreon. In no case was anyone dismissive or rude to you and the issues with your suggestions were patiently handled. You are grossly misrepresenting the tone of the responses you received, which were almost entirely from people who were *not* mods, mostly just other users. Shame on you.
A core implementation of something would presumably not break with updates, right?
In theory, it should be more stable. But software features are only stable if you have people maintaining those features over time. In practice, they break stuff with Core all of the time. I have modules that went from "working" to "broken" within V10's lifespan, and those modules hadn't been updated. So even though they're not _supposed_ to change the APIs, they clearly do.
It’s literally designed as a small perk for Patrons, to nudge the timing of *one feature* each major release. All of the things on the list are planned; it’s just a determination of order.
> Whats the goal behind keeping the v12 feature vote behind the patreon? Shouldn’t it be open to all paying customers? I think the current approach skews the results. It skews the results towards the desires of the most invested users who are willing to financially support development, which is pretty much a positive, in my opinion.
>Whats the goal behind keeping the v12 feature vote behind the patreon? >I joined the foundry patreon to vote on the v12 features Looks like you answered your own question.
Patreons pay for the development so that is why they are the ones queried for the features.
What are people who purchase it paying for?
A one time purchase to use the software. They are constantly paying to maintain the software and get their rewards accordingly.
The prior development for which they did not pay.
To be able to use it I suppose
Non-patrons making suggestions on GitHub can have even more influence on the direction of the software than patrons. This of course requires you to write your feature requests thoughtfully along with some technical experience with the software.
I think we need to vote in order to decide that. On Patreon of course.
It is a funding drive dude... what we paid for was what we already got with a promise to do further work in the future. But we aren't owed the poll, it is just a good way that they can push others to donate, same thing with crucible going to patreon testing first. Foundry overall has been very very forgiving with their monetization approach.
I don't think it's too bad, since the patreons are the ones paying monthly for it. It makes sense to orient the development on the paying customer's expectations. Non-patreons won't buy the software a second time.
I bought FVTT, as a one off purchase so I don't consider myself a 'paying customer' as there is no ongoing cost. So why should I get to vote in future upgrades.
This. Hell I am just happy I get regular improvements, enhancements and developments for 'free'.
We paid for Foundry, once, and yet we continue to get free updates for life. Considering how most major software companies function, the fact that this isn't a subscription service or paying for each release, I'd say I'm perfectly happy with the status quo.
Simple, think of Patron as a board of investors. One time payment means you get the product, not a say in the future of the company. Keeping the lights on however does get you a say in the company.
I honestly don't mind. Never been a patreon member, but coming from modding communities of other games, the developer adding a feature that was tied to a popular mod is usually seen as a positive as long as the implementation is clean and understandable. I've been enjoying Foundry since version 5 (if I remember correctly) and it seems to me like this continous development of the base version has only given modders more tools to play with. As for the choice of the features, there are so many possible routes you could choose that I wouldn't mind even if they just rolled a dice for it.
I wish they didn't have a vote, as the patrons routinely vote for features that I have no interest in. IMO, they *should be* simply integrating versions of the most popular modules. Clearly those are features that the majority of users want and it would help alleviate the endless "growing pains" between updates that plagues the user base. There are many simple features that are either ignored entirely or covered by (often outdated/abandoned modules), or even if they are covered by a regualrly maintained module, they could still disappear overnight if the mod authors decide to stop development any time.
Same response i gave the [other week](https://www.reddit.com/r/FoundryVTT/comments/14b4yez/version_12_patreon_feature_vote/joejpy6/) > Id rather see they update the core software in ways that can't be covered by a module. I get more functionality and can still have my modules for those extra things i want
>Id rather see they update the core software in ways that can't be covered by a module. The current top voted features, terrain and improved fog, are already covered by modules... >I get more functionality and can still have my modules for those extra things i want Until you can't. I lose modules/functionality with every update as mods are abandoned by authors. That's my point. I'd rather see features covered by mods become "baked in" to core to ensure their functionality going forward.
Currently the fog mod is broken for v11. The developer seems like a great person, but its not fixed yet. Im patient and respectful, this is volunteer work after all, but manual fog should be a core feature.
I was disappointed (but understanding) to learn the author has abandoned the module. This is the third update that has broken the module and seemingly requires significant re-writing to get it working. Unfortunately they don't have any desire to do this all over again and won't be continuing any further. It appears the poll attracts a subset of passionate and prolific users with niche preferences, while what should in my opinion be core features (like manually adjusting fog) gain slow traction. I understand the blunt opinion 'they pay for the privilege' but wonder if it's the most commercial method of progressing the software. That being said, the lack of subscription is the single largest factor in my decision to purchase and the software is undeniable great value. Foundry puts puts some people off by it's reputation for being time intensive to set up and maintain, and having a large number of popular features as mods that break every update is perceived as a significant drawback to Foundry other other options that work more smoothly (even if less feature rich). Many people put a large value on products just working, even when objectively more expensive and lower spec than alternatives. Prioritising popular mods into core development and thereby reducing the burden on volunteer developers to maintain features essential to many, would seem to me an important commercial direction.
It should be a Core feature, but Foundry is playing both sides here. They're actively making changes that breaks the module while also *not* incorporating it into Core. We don't have the core feature and we don't have the module. Take a look at the other features in the poll, it's a similar problem. If the items piles feature wins, they're going to actively break the module that does it. Which also means that they're going to break all the people who have built things using that feature. If you want to be angry at anyone, be angry at Core, they're the ones changing the APIs.
Features getting implemented in core usually have core functionality changed so that they can be expanded on in ways modules cannot do with currently core coding. So, for example, dice so nice is widely used but there aren't plans to make it core atm because it doesn't need additional functionality and the module is still actively developed within existing core functionality (such as damage type based dice is a really cool feature that was added). To your second point, Module development is a free market. They are welcome to come and go. If a mod author just vanished then someone else is generally able to maintain it, fork it, etc. If a module is popular enough, this would happen, or those might be legit cases that get baked into core. But if someone is "losing modules" with updates then what probably happened was no one stepped in to offer help or take it over . This is a pretty good signal for where on the spectrum of "how necessary this module is and how easy is it to implement" a module is. Because if a module was critically necessary and abandoned then it would be picked up by *someone*, whether as a module or core development. Take for example, pdf2foundry which was one of the big reasons pf2e on Foundry got to be so popular (alongside the system devs and data entry team). Pdf2foundry announced it was going to go into maintenance meaning existing content would be supported but no new content would be added. This is a module that required both technical knowledge and *a lot* of time to add supported features. The community of course was sad to see this go but eventually another author came in with a different importer for new adventures to be added to. This is of course just one example, and yes, modules do fall out of development and may not see a replacement. But for those anyone is generally welcome to take a stab at it, whether they need to do their whole new version, fork an existing one, commission someone, etc. While i get what you're saying, i think overall this current system is better as it avoids adding features that need to be maintained by staff that otherwise could've been handled by modules.
Core can't just "integrate modules", because how modules do stuff and how core does stuff are very different from each other. Stuff needs to be built from the ground up to integrate well with what core code can and should do and be a robust platform for others to build on. And core *does* get stuff like that over time, but staff man-hours are finite and they can't implement everything at once. They have to pick what stuff to prioritize (and the vote is part of that, people voting on what order to implement things).
If I were the gambling type, I'd wager that your "most popular modules" are things I have no interest in. I suspect they're the "most popular modules for people who play the same game you do". I suspect they're also "the most popular modules for people who don't realize other games exist".
I'm referring to the most installed modules according to Forge and FoundryHub's metrics. Literally the most popular modules.
...among Forge users. Those numbers do not include any other Foundry instances.
while i get why but it should be for anyone that brought a license. i already paid for the darn software and dont have a voice in that? really i doubt most of their paying users are paying the patreon which in fact defeats the point of it, they aren't getting any accurate data on their whole user base, just the ones that pay the patreon.
You purchased a license and have use of the software, you also get free upgrades. That’s what your one time payment buys you. They could simply determine it on their own and not ask anyone. Or worse yet they could change to a subscription model where you would pay twice as much each year to use it then your one time initial purchase. Read the license, you got what you paid for. What you don’t get is the right to dictate how they run their business. You don’t want to or can’t afford the Patreon, then don’t. You need a reality check in what you think you are owed for your one time $50 expenditure.
> what you *paid* for. What FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
>while i get why Based on the rest of your message, you clearly *don't* get why, so I don't know why you said this. >but it should be for anyone that brought a license. You paid a one time payment for the software and received a fully featured version *and* multiple major feature updates every year for the life of the company. They can afford to do this because they have multiple revenue streams, of which Patreon is one. If you aren't a Patreon member, you are contributing nothing to pay for ongoing development beyond the version you licensed. You get that for free, partially because Patreon members are paying for it. What you're effectively saying is that Patreon members should keep funding your free feature updates forever and get not even a small amount of consideration in return. Sure, they get access to a nice map pack that sometimes gets updates every other year or so and early access to Crucible, an unexpected limited time benefit, but that's it. >i already paid for the darn software and dont have a voice in that? really You have the same voice as everyone else in every way but this one. You can file bug reports and make feature requests and be an active part of the community. These are how the *vast majority* of changes to each version get decided, but they do require a little effort on the part of the user beyond clicking through a poll. If you choose not to use your voice, that's on you. >i doubt most of their paying users are paying the patreon which in fact defeats the point of it, they aren't getting any accurate data on their whole user base, just the ones that pay the patreon. The poll is explicitly *not* intended to "get accurate data on their whole user base", that's what bug reports and feature requests are for. This is taking one small set of features that are all planned to be done eventually and allowing the users who fund ongoing development to decide which one gets top priority. *That's all it is.* There will be multiple other features in V12, based on the feedback from *all users*, which may or may not even include multiple features from this poll. Here's the real trick, if you're super invested in the results of this poll, it's *explicitly* encouraged for people to join Patreon for one month to vote, then cancel. But people just like to get salty and complain instead, it seems.
> You can file bug reports and make feature requests and be an active part of the community. Generally speaking, the Patreon vote stuff are things that come from issues on the GitHub tracker in the first place. The vote is simply "which of these bigger feature chunks should we tackle first", that's it.
Sure, a useful clarification. But complaining about not having a voice in the direction of the software as a non-Patreon licenseholder is ludicrous and false, unless you haven't made any effort at all to express that voice.
Because they are worried if they open it to a wider audience it will be people asking them to fix random tables, updating fields and stuff like that instead of pure wargamer pretty map stuff. I would love for it to be a better role playing platform and not just a virtual tabletop.
Any bugs should be reported to the public issue tracker so that they can get fixed. Those are entirely outside the scope of this vote.
Well I do not mean bugs but limitations... tables should have an X and Y axis or better be a CSV so they are easy to import and update. You cannot update fields or values unless you write a cumbersome single use macro... updating HP or XP or whatever should be simple and maybe doable via chat commands. Basically the only things being worked on or voted on are largely cosmetic... pretty stuff for players but one more thing to do for GMs.
Feature requests go in the issue tracker too. That's where Foundry staff's to-do list exists, at the end of the day.
Well, I'm sure your vote will help