Unified Addon Standards

[comp_uter15776 1]

Hello all,

I figured this was about the best place to put this as it seems this is who it is most relevant to.

I spoke with many recently about ArmA, some good, some bad, and my intention with this post is to hopefully help gloss over one issue: The varying degrees of standards that addons are created to.

Now, issues arise with attempting to unify such standards anyway, but I think it would be manageable. Those who say "but you can just choose which you want anyway!", well, you can, but it'd be nice to have some sort of scheme where if you see an image or something that the addon is of a high level and is a solid build. I stress the latter of that as I know many new addon creators could potentially be perturbed by seeing their work not reach this level (and subsequently the community may be more reluctant to try them out), however, whether one is new or old school, if the addon is solid then it may attain such recognition. I'll expand further on my own personal views on what constitutes such, but this will most likely be decided after some community elaboration.

Another benefit is that if addons are all of or above a set standard, that compatibility in servers may hopefully arise as players could perhaps choose "packs" of mods, all know to be working with each other and entirely cross-compatible, so public servers would have a few options rather than say, 5 extremely specific addons. I envision this to be introduced at a later date after this standardisation idea is accepted/disagreed with, as it's slightly different from ensuring these addons are beautifully crafted.

So what is standardisation? What changes could an addon expect to see to meet these requirements? What is "solid" as you put it?

Well, unification (or standardisation) is actually levelling something out (be it an idea or a physical entity) of multiple assets to create a "common ground" where they could perhaps share the same interface. This isn't quite what I am looking at for ArmA as many content creators like to keep their independence, which is why I've separated the idea of creating "packs" of addons and making them all of a reputable standard.

The changes an addon could expect to see - well, aside from being entirely optional, an addon could change it's user interface, implementation (mod folders etc), compatibility, ease of use (sort of links to UI), actual content quality - which is less of a constituent to obtaining a "standardised mod", or even just keeping nice organised and detailed logs of changes - future aspirations for the addon, and any known issues too.

So, a solid build then... Well, this will be up to the group of addon creators who do support this kind of idea, to find a mutual agreement between all the be it through compromise or an actual agreement (haha yeah right! :P) on what the minimum bar is. My personal thoughts are as follows:

-Should be detailed in a good format for the release thread/topic, mainly. A BI forum thread including such information as a description, changelog, installation, screenshots, to-do/known issues, and then any other notes would all be a good starting point to standardising what is said. I can probably find a template for this.

-UI: For those adding content (mainly vehicles), limits should be made on what the action menu is used for, and/or how. This is because nobody likes scrolling through 20000 options just to see the one you want at the bottom - then there's the fact they may be all coloured and thus look horrific (my analogy was regurgitated cheerios). For those tweaking certain gameplay mechanics, visual elements like symbols or other such content could be unified so we don't have several versions of a NATO texture or something.

-Cross-compatibility: Whilst not a huge deciding factor (at least in my books), cross compatibility would be a good asset for content to have, as it means the player can keep piling it on :D Of course, there would have to be testing done with various addons and we'd have to decide what addons are tested against each other.

-Implementation: This is rather common for most addons now anyway, but proper structure that would go something along the lines of a .ZIP, with two folders, a license agreement if necessary, and a readme. The two folders would be the mod itself, and perhaps a showcase mission to demonstrate a mod's use.

-Ease of use: A mod could be checked to see how simple it is to use, of course that would be weighted against what it did (sound mods should require little work, something like ACE I can see taking a lot of time to understand). This could also bring some of the above together too, how easy is it to implement? What about the UI? Is that nice and clean?

-Content quality: Finally, content quality. Again this wouldn't be a deciding factor as some are more experienced than others, but an addon should have a certain level of good content.

Okay, so I'm going to just wrap it up here for now with a little summary. If you have any questions (I'm sure some of you will be keen to point out this idea's flaws!) I'll endeavour to answer them. Please remember that the stuff listed above wouldn't necessarily be representative of what there would be on final agreement as other people's ideas may entirely contradict mine. I'm open to suggestion, too.

Summary:

A unified standard for addons (depending on type (visual, audio...)) which that content creators can attempt to meet in order to be permitted to display perhaps some kind of recognition like a logo to show to other members that this addon is of a high quality, not necessarily in the content itself but in many factors that would be finalised at a later date. This would hopefully remove the differences between so many addons (as 5 addons of aircraft may be entirely different in their format).

An open group will be created at some point today hopefully where addon makers can voice their ideas and concerns between each other until we find the best solution.

http://forums.bistudio.com/group.php?groupid=327

Edited September 14, 2013 by Comp_uter15776

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

So... basically you want addonmakers to agree to meet an external set of standards and only those that do will get your little badge/seal of approval icon, if I'm understanding this right?

[comp_uter15776 1]

So... basically you want addonmakers to agree to meet an external set of standards and only those that do will get your little badge/seal of approval icon, if I'm understanding this right?

Not quite. Only those who choose basically, and it would enhance the uniformity and encourage compatibility. After all, we're a community. The standards wouldn't exactly be external if those that wanted to standardise aided in setting the bar now, would it? (And that is what we're attempting to go for here, I only outlined some basics, but in the end it would be the makers themselves who could say for example, whether they'd like UI to be checked or not.

Now, there are always issues with everything and if I infer correctly you basically have a wavering view on the ability to group together addon makers and "make" them work together, right?

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

This has been tried before. For probably at least the last decade. In the end, addonmakers make stuff because *they* want to. They stop when their creation is something they can be happy with. You won't see very many addons up to TKOH or A3 standards for a very long time, mostly because for every level of detail and functionality and the like that you add to something, you're talking, usually, months of extra work. BIS is going to be looking into a paid community content scheme, this straight from Marek, and that will be enough, I think. Possibly even too much.

[sakura_chan 9]

Boo! Hiss! *throws loose twigs and pebbles at the screen*

[comp_uter15776 1]

This has been tried before. For probably at least the last decade. In the end, addonmakers make stuff because *they* want to. They stop when their creation is something they can be happy with. You won't see very many addons up to TKOH or A3 standards for a very long time, mostly because for every level of detail and functionality and the like that you add to something, you're talking, usually, months of extra work. BIS is going to be looking into a paid community content scheme, this straight from Marek, and that will be enough, I think. Possibly even too much.

And that's not quite what I'm going for. This isn't a content based scheme where quality is the deciding factor. They can make it how they wish, and once they're fine with it, that's all well. The standardisation would be introduced for other portions rather than functionality.

[sttosin 67]

My observation over the last couple of years play A2, A2 OA, some OFP and now A3 is that the quality addons naturally rise to the top. The community tries them out and if they add enough value to generate more interest, people make suggestions and the mod improves and gets more usage, etc. The quality also improves based on user feedback. This model helps the users and modders work out the bugs and end up with a better experience. I guess I am seeing anything fundamentally wrong about this current model. It would not have been sustained for so long. In contrast, the seems to be a lot of creative work going on without much overhead that allows rapid experimentation and feedback.

Maybe instead of a seal of approval, if the number of views/downloads on Mod's forum reaches certain numbers, then the milestones are highlighted or something. If there's a better way of determining popularity among users that will also be ideal.

[kremator 1064]

Sakura is outside .. cos he's got access to stones and twigs ... someone get him inside and coding FFS !!!

[da12thMonkey 1943]

We get this sort of thread appear every time a new Arma game comes out and nobody is ever interested.

The addon-making community is far too dynamic to stifle it with a set of universal standards that cannot possibly cover every idea that the creative minds of this community will come up with over the coming years. A few small-scale standardisations have come about like JAM for OFP, and a bit of mutual sharing of cfgfaction classes in Arma 1 and 2 to keep the editor tidy, but authors quite rightly do what they think is a good idea for them.

That said, I think Arma 3 could probably do with a version of JAM since the current ammo and magazines available in game don't really cover many of the sort of weapon systems that community authors are most likely to make - as such we don't have a standard set by BIS for thinks like AK mags and 5.56mm MG belts, so we'll end up with a dozen different ammo and magazine classnames over time.

[riouken 15]

I don't really agree with this, I think the community in general does a great job of promoting and pushing the great mods to the top. Most people create addons because its their way of being creative, and most dont get paid for this. To imose limits and have some one else tell others how and when to be creative doesn't sound like a very appealing hobby to me.

I like Sttosin's idea, I think the addon/mod threads that are user reviewed/rated highly should be designated in a better way, maybe special markers or a separate section in the forums.

[PuFu 4591]

You will never be able to set a standard for content that is made by various people in their free time, with different and wide range and level of skills, just because you made a thread. Yes, turbosquid has such a jpg sticker, but then again, that a commercial website.

What you don't really understand, from your addon consumer pov, is that most addon makers are making things for their own (and maybe friends), and not for the community. Yes, they choose to share it with a community, but the main incentive is their own pleasure that the pleasure of a greater group.

There are obviously different standards withing modding groups such as ACE, RKSL, RHS, but those are all different, and their main reason is to get things working on the same level for everyone who is contributing to that group. But even then, things are really loose.

To conclude, nobody is really interested in such standardization, beside maybe the consumers.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

We get this sort of thread appear every time a new Arma game comes out and nobody is ever interested.

I'm surprised it didn't pop up during the beta, honestly.

[vagabond985 0]

BIS is going to be looking into a paid community content scheme, this straight from Marek, and that will be enough, I think. Possibly even too much.

Can you please provide the link to that thread? No long ago a moderator warned me of my desire to wanting people to pay for quality addons. He said that would be against the EULA from the BIS tool. Are you saying that this is actually about to change?

[comp_uter15776 1]

Can you please provide the link to that thread? No long ago a moderator warned me of my desire to wanting people to pay for quality addons. He said that would be against the EULA from the BIS tool. Are you saying that this is actually about to change?

I remember seeing this. It could very well change. Marek stated it on his report in:

http://www.arma3.com/news/report-in-marek-spanel-ceo

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

You will never be able to set a standard for content that is made by various people in their free time, with different and wide range and level of skills, just because you made a thread. Yes, turbosquid has such a jpg sticker, but then again, that a commercial website.

What you don't really understand, from your addon consumer pov, is that most addon makers are making things for their own (and maybe friends), and not for the community. Yes, they choose to share it with a community, but the main incentive is their own pleasure that the pleasure of a greater group.

There are obviously different standards withing modding groups such as ACE, RKSL, RHS, but those are all different, and their main reason is to get things working on the same level for everyone who is contributing to that group. But even then, things are really loose.

To conclude, nobody is really interested in such standardization, beside maybe the consumers.

This is probably the most articulate argument against this. But, you bring up a very good point that conflicts with your own.

No one is really interested in Standardization, aside from maybe the consumer. But by that logic, addon makers simply must not play anyone elses mods? Lets face it. Whether or not we're making mods, we all consume them.

So now we're faced with whether we want to conform to a standard for a communities sake, or whether the addon maker simply wants to do as he pleases, not interested in community perception or ease of use.

Which is just fine! The OP wasn't suggesting anything that would limit this freedom. He instead is suggesting something that may be deadly useful for the addon makers who DO create for a community rather than their circle of friends alone.

With that said, it doesn't HAVE to be a compromise when you fit some set standards into your mod. It's simply entirely up to the mod-makers perception. Is a mod maker compromising if he uses a community standard to create his STANAG mags, rather than creating a whole new set of mags that aren't compatible with any other STANAG weapons? No! He's making it easier on himself, because when he plays with other mods that compliment his, he doesn't have to play a guessing game when he wants to load is rifle. He has to spend less time writing configs, creating ui elements, documentation, etc, because along with standards also comes resources from said standards.

To conclude, standardization would really benefit everyone involved. Sure, while there are certainly cases where standardization wouldn't fit with some mods, in most cases it's a will or attitude issue when an addon maker spurns the idea. (Which they're entitled to). But there are addon makers that would still greatly benefit from it. Don't trash the idea just because some some veteran modders hate the idea of anything new or outside their comfort zone. Also, don't discount the idea because of the OP's initial suggestions. I think we can all agree that some of them are a little too far over the edge. (Quality control? Really?)

[comp_uter15776 1]

snip

This is basically why I proposed such an idea in the first place. Some of the suggestions were just to kickstart a discussion. Oh, and I think you confirm what I pretty much thought; that some more veteran addon creators are stuck in old habits which die hard and want total independence and freedom and as such try to bash anything that remotely links their work with something else (which isn't the focal point here, an author would retain everything, just make it... more friendly in the first place).

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Don't trash the idea just because some some veteran modders hate the idea of anything new or outside their comfort zone.

The idea's not new at all though.

You've pointed that addon makers will adhere to standards if it makes their job easier - which is true. However, a lot of the ideas for standardisation do not make an addon maker's life easier at all, hence "standards" tend to get ignored.

The whole STANAG compatability thing was achieved pretty well in Arma 2 because BIS included a shit load of commonly used ammunition and magazine types in the core game that were naturally used via weapon class inheritance (something that makes an addon maker's job much easier - since the alternative is writing the whole weapon config with custom values for everything): no need to write a bunch of new ammo and magazine classnames or download separate addon dependancies. However, in cases where there weren't any appropriate BIS magazines for a certain weapon, everybody would still make their own rather than be dependant on another addon for the sake of one special magazine.

In OFP we had to create a "community standard" addon called JAM to achieve this sort of interchangeability function (mainly because using core BIS magazine classes in OFP was severely limiting - weapon sounds were defined by the magazine not the weapon, and BIS' sounds were shite). And while a lot of the bigger OFP addon makers did use JAM, there were certainly plenty of addons that did not use it, and even addon makers who did normally use JAM would end up creating their own mags if none of the available JAM ones fit their requirements.

[roshnak 41]

A certain level of standardization to keep from having a million similar or duplicate classes, but I feel like a great deal of creativity would be stifled if people had to think about which box their addon fits best into before they started working on it.

Also, paid community content is terrible and I want no part of it.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

The idea's not new at all though.

No one claimed it was. (I was referring to implementing it, which would certainly be new to most) But it's definitely one that deserves revisiting.

You've pointed that addon makers will adhere to standards if it makes their job easier - which is true. However, a lot of the ideas for standardisation do not make an addon maker's life easier at all, hence "standards" tend to get ignored.

Which is the whole point of this discussion. The OP suggested a discussion, and put in a few point that he finds important. And at that, no one else has made any type of suggestions or even compromises to his ideas. But instead just chiming in with what amounts to "NOT GOING TO DO IT, WONT WORK!!!11"

Which may be the largest barrier to standardization in Arma 3. It won't be the difficulty of implementing it, maintaining it, or using it. It'll be getting past the attitudes and misconceptions of the mod developers.

----

Personally, I really like the idea of release package standardization. Something ideal would be a template package that already has the formatting done, you just have to fill in the info, and drop the mods into the right folders. But hopefully we won't have to worry about it soon, since I'll be subscribing to my mods from steam instead.

[PuFu 4591]

This is probably the most articulate argument against this. But, you bring up a very good point that conflicts with your own.

I read it all 2 times and wasn't really able to find where i was contradicting myself.

No one is really interested in Standardization, aside from maybe the consumer. But by that logic, addon makers simply must not play anyone elses mods? Lets face it. Whether or not we're making mods, we all consume them.

Yes, we all consume it, that's true. That said, things are perceived very differentl from 2 diff sides.

So now we're faced with whether we want to conform to a standard for a communities sake, or whether the addon maker simply wants to do as he pleases, not interested in community perception or ease of use.

Which is just fine! The OP wasn't suggesting anything that would limit this freedom. He instead is suggesting something that may be deadly useful for the addon makers who DO create for a community rather than their circle of friends alone.

I have always been part of addon groups that released everything for the public community as well (IC, ACE, RHS), and not just a group of mates, so i really don't get your comment.

With that said, it doesn't HAVE to be a compromise when you fit some set standards into your mod. It's simply entirely up to the mod-makers perception. Is a mod maker compromising if he uses a community standard to create his STANAG mags, rather than creating a whole new set of mags that aren't compatible with any other STANAG weapons? No! He's making it easier on himself, because when he plays with other mods that compliment his, he doesn't have to play a guessing game when he wants to load is rifle. He has to spend less time writing configs, creating ui elements, documentation, etc, because along with standards also comes resources from said standards.

That is very true, as da12 already posted about JAM, i am gonna bring up the chart for armored vehicles (for the life of me i can't remember the name of the chart or find it at this very moment), that was also considered to be a community standard when it came to setting up armored levels for tanks, apcs and alike, in order to have gameplay compatibility between one and another.

That said, this is not what i read in the OP.

Especially when todays gear vehicles are concerned, some might want to have a common base config to inherit from so thus all those weapons, ammo and vehicles behaves roughly the same, and thus would be compatible with one another. I support that full heartly.

To conclude, standardization would really benefit everyone involved. Sure, while there are certainly cases where standardization wouldn't fit with some mods, in most cases it's a will or attitude issue when an addon maker spurns the idea. (Which they're entitled to). But there are addon makers that would still greatly benefit from it. Don't trash the idea just because some some veteran modders hate the idea of anything new or outside their comfort zone. Also, don't discount the idea because of the OP's initial suggestions. I think we can all agree that some of them are a little too far over the edge. (Quality control? Really?)

yes, things like CBA is a standard nowadays, because of the functionality it provides, and not because some JPG badge. It is widely adopted though.I guess things like quality control, distribution method, and alike are things that we all agree cannot be standardized.

There is no talk about a common cfg, or a common way to make things cross-compatible, instead the emphasis, especially from where i am standing, is to point out bluntly the differences in quality (be it accuracy of model, features, texture quality and so forth) on these forums, which is something i completly dissagree with, not because i am not able to create content as the same level as BIS quality (i am working in this industry for quite some time), but rather because i feel that each should make up his own mind, and not undermine the newblood because they cannot reach some arbitrary standards.

This is basically why I proposed such an idea in the first place. Some of the suggestions were just to kickstart a discussion. Oh, and I think you confirm what I pretty much thought; that some more veteran addon creators are stuck in old habits which die hard and want total independence and freedom and as such try to bash anything that remotely links their work with something else (which isn't the focal point here, an author would retain everything, just make it... more friendly in the first place).

NO. old farts such as myself have a little of an ego if you want, where i wouldn't have some arbitrary person who knows less about addons than the ones creating them give them marks based on subjective criteria, and thus creating some sort of favoritism of any kind. It is unneeded.

I would much rather have a mature conversation about a common layout in order to have most of the future releases cross compatible between them, as well as with BI current and future content (IE: not having a tank have enourmous protection level, thus breaking possible missions in relation with other weapons and vehicles). Such discussion should be technical and research oriented, and involve a number of details that could end up forming the structure of a template cfg, as well as P3D LODs creation. I think that would help quite a lot more than talking about a possible JPG badge.

Just my 2 cents anyways.

The idea's not new at all though.

You've pointed that addon makers will adhere to standards if it makes their job easier - which is true. However, a lot of the ideas for standardisation do not make an addon maker's life easier at all, hence "standards" tend to get ignored.

The whole STANAG compatability thing was achieved pretty well in Arma 2 because BIS included a shit load of commonly used ammunition and magazine types in the core game that were naturally used via weapon class inheritance (something that makes an addon maker's job much easier - since the alternative is writing the whole weapon config with custom values for everything): no need to write a bunch of new ammo and magazine classnames or download separate addon dependancies. However, in cases where there weren't any appropriate BIS magazines for a certain weapon, everybody would still make their own rather than be dependant on another addon for the sake of one special magazine.

In OFP we had to create a "community standard" addon called JAM to achieve this sort of interchangeability function (mainly because using core BIS magazine classes in OFP was severely limiting - weapon sounds were defined by the magazine not the weapon, and BIS' sounds were shite). And while a lot of the bigger OFP addon makers did use JAM, there were certainly plenty of addons that did not use it, and even addon makers who did normally use JAM would end up creating their own mags if none of the available JAM ones fit their requirements.

what he said.

[roshnak 41]

Which is the whole point of this discussion. The OP suggested a discussion, and put in a few point that he finds important. And at that, no one else has made any type of suggestions or even compromises to his ideas. But instead just chiming in with what amounts to "NOT GOING TO DO IT, WONT WORK!!!11"

Well, that's not true. The very guy you are quoting said that something like JAM might be a good idea again.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

A certain level of standardization to keep from having a million similar or duplicate classes, but I feel like a great deal of creativity would be stifled if people had to think about which box their addon fits best into before they started working on it.

That's just the thing. Your perception is off entirely on what the suggestions and discussion is about. It's not about placing anyone's mods into categories, or anything remotely similar to that. It's about providing resources and information for mod makers to use that conform to standards that benefit both the mod makers and mod consumers. Then making it clear to the mod consumers which mods have a defined set of expectations that they can come to rely on when considering which addons they use. Sometimes these expectations may have no more influence on a mod than the documentation standards.

Also, paid community content is terrible and I want no part of it.

Agreed. Unless it's a rare selection chosen by the community for paid DLC with stringent requirements regarding source material.

[comp_uter15776 1]

snip

Didn't say I was "marking" them or any kind of score-based idea. It'd be the addon creators themselves standardising it. The idea isn't to see which are favourites or not, it's to aid the addons to run well.

[PuFu 4591]

Didn't say I was "marking" them or any kind of score-based idea. It'd be the addon creators themselves standardising it. The idea isn't to see which are favourites or not, it's to aid the addons to run well.

This is not what myself or da12 got out of you op.

How would you aid addons to run well btw, there is no particular info given so far

[comp_uter15776 1]

This is not what myself or da12 got out of you op.

How would you aid addons to run well btw, there is no particular info given so far

Because it's not meant to be a singular effort... the idea of unification is multiple parties having an influence. Things you say and suggest I'll spearhead sure, then it gets implemented by more than just myself.