Katie Mae said: (Snipped) You strive to sync them up but, it does not affect the sunsetting date when it just so happens to be on a major release? You are telling everyone, a VTT would not know of when a particular module was going to come out ahead of time despite the negotiation and planning that goes into such? It may have not been you that made the decision, but there is absolutely somebody at the top that did want to finalize the solution, for a module(s) that may or may not benefit from UDL. Nobody is blaming you, however it is disingenuous to state such things. The point people were concerned of was missed entirely with regards to the date. Everyone would like to know that if UDL is not stable will you force the sunsetting of LDL regardless or will the date be pushed back. Committing to a date was reasonable, however, if you cannot make such date every GM/Player must be well informed if they should expect bugs on release or flexible sunset date for their own planning/scheduling. Please reassure us that existing/known bugs on sunset date will push the release back rather than send out a imperfect product. Where is this large majority of people that have been confused by how lines worked in LDL? What I can see is a huge amount of people constantly bringing up the issues that the alteration of calculations makes. In every thread regarding UDL, people are pointing out the issues this causes with existing modules, previously made maps, and currently made maps. LDL to UDL conversion does not take this difference into account, nor will several player or company made modules that used LDL to begin with. Exactly why is this the best solution when it ends up forcing longtime users to alter their maps due to a change none seem to have requested? Please do point us in the direction of the suggestion that requested lines block from the edge rather than center and if said suggestion went through the voting process. Alternatively, the data that has so indicated this as the best solution, I can't recall there being any polls or similar put out for this change so it must be internal. Lastly asking people to post a Suggestion for adding in an LDL standard is absolutely absurd. Suggestions in the thread can take up to a decade to implement if we're going by dark mode requests (not fulfilled), map organization (no folders and still ongoing), or token updates (broken, still no way to address default tokens as player). This is also absolutely not feature parity, changing a basic function then saying you can add it in later does not count as parity. The sole fact a conversion tool is necessary is a problem in it's own right, it still routinely breaks games, causes black screens and irreparable damage without rolling back the game. Lag is a huge issue, it needs fixing right after line calculations are fixed as it's likely the new calculation methods are causing such lag (along with numerous brute forced methods for lighting on a brief glance). Another issue is the game straight up not opening on several users computers, that isn't lag nor page freezing, but it's not properly listed so... all that's left might be minimum specs for the platform going up (which users absolutely need to know asap). There needs to be some larger testing front on Roll20 for game breaking issues, it's hard to determine if lower spec computers, computers without non-internal GPUs, or some other combination of factors like processing capability or ram is causing them. The large frustration people are also having is that Roll20 itself, the company is not seeming to find new bugs, it's only on the User end. While user known bugs are wonderful to list and address, it might be in the best interest to demonstrate that the Userbase in itself is not the sole QA testers for the company. Announcements are good, adding them to this thread might be best along with any immediate comments users may make such as a "patch" not solving the problem listed as it has a few times, with lag especially. A much, much more clear indication for all users in these fixes would be exactly what hardware/software it was tested on as all reports from the user end are asked for such, why shouldn't the fixes have the same listing? Additionally, why is the UDL list of bugs to fix so terribly prioritized and non-committal? Page Freezing, Grids Disappearing, and Visibility are "fixes that will be addressed either before sunsetting LDL or sometime soon after", despite being completely game breaking . They are listed in their own separate area and seemingly can't be 100% finished before the sunsetting despite constant pressure. If major game breaking bugs can't be fixed before sunsetting, then why sunset on that date at the potential cost of users ?