Legal discussion regarding Steam Workshop

[Opticalsnare 12]

I don't want to say that you are completely wrong, but ...

Originally there were only two players in the Arma mod community. People who dealt with learning .sqf and how to manipulate Arma to their needs and made things like JSRS, Blastcore, ACE, JTD_Fire and then the people who used them. The key thing about the latter is that they always had issues. "Man, ACE would be better if they didn't do XYZ" or "Why doesn't JSRS do XYZ" or "Why do I get this error each time LMNOP". Back then it was up to the original creators to patch the content and or private groups to administer their own patches. For example, FAR_Revive was made by one of the founding members of the group I play with, but he has all but stopped playing since the beta. Does this mean we continued to play with the old public version of FAR_Rev? No! A couple other members took up the challenge and fixed bugs and added in new features. FAR_Rev Comfy Branch and A3G Medical were born. Does this mean that the original creator's rights were violated? No. A mod was made of another mod. No tears were shed, no swears were said, and everyone went about their day because a new player had entered the Arma modding scene to help equalize things.

These are people who don't make their own original content (at least not at first), but fix and manipulate the content that already exists. CrustAir is an addon that changes the flight and weapon characteristics of all known air assets in Arma 3. Does this mean that he should go and learn to make his own F18 because he doesn't like how it flys or sounds? No. Would you make your own M4 because RH_M4's textures are too clean? No! With these new players in the Arma community you are going to see a great balancing. No more will you have mods go months without updates, someone else will pick it up. No more will you have weapons that have problems, because a third party patch will be out for it soon. That error you get for shooting a modded gun while using S.O.S? Gone! Because someone made a stand alone patch. At the same time, this is going to help ease new people into the mod community who want to make content but don't have the time or skill to make a full sized big mod. This doesn't stop the first party modders from doing what they wish with their mods, but they shouldn't be upset a third party is also co-developing.

This is for the better, to create a better mod community, no matter how many jimmies it may rustle.

Well good luck with my mod dickshat i HOPE you won't understand a fucking thing, and you will have to spend days upon fucking days trying to work it out. Wtf are you even here you stupid assfucking shit.

[zooloo75 834]

I don't want to say that you are completely wrong, but ...

This is for the better, to create a better mod community, no matter how many jimmies it may rustle.

Well then it isn't for the best of the modding community if it pisses the modding community off and causes them to stop releasing their work because of the inconvenience of douchebags violating their IP rights.

Modifying a mod for your own personal or clan-use is fine IMO, but redistributing it and then bashing the original author in order to defend your own adjustments that wouldn't exist if they didn't make it in the first place is a completely different story.

Creating a better modding community is communicating with other modders, receiving their personal permission to use their work, COLLABORATING with them, not against them. We all have the courtesy to respect eachothers' rights and work. If someone doesn't want you redistributing a modified version of their work, then don't do it. Jumping through legal loopholes in order to justify your wrong-doing just makes you look like an ass.

Without us, you are nothing.

Edited July 17, 2014 by zooloo75

[PuFu 4600]

While, yes, this will make it much harder to crack open pbo's (BI uses .ebo for the DLC's which seems to be exactly what you're asking for), but in the end the game still requires assets to be loaded and understandable for the engine. For persistent people, things can still be ripped out of the game by force while it's running. For example, that special tool for ripping out models/textures which I'm not going to name and within the BI community, binarization used to a method of "protection" until people made tools to bypass that.

Unfortunately, there are several actually. again, nothing one can do about it if we are talking about ripping and selling it (bar digitally signing every 3d model), but they can't really use the resulting mesh within this engine without redoing a lot of the original work. but then again, this is not the subject. Steam is.

I don't want to say that you are completely wrong, but ...

Originally there were only two players in the Arma mod community. People who dealt with learning .sqf and how to manipulate Arma to their needs and made things like JSRS, Blastcore, ACE, JTD_Fire and then the people who used them. The key thing about the latter is that they always had issues. "Man, ACE would be better if they didn't do XYZ" or "Why doesn't JSRS do XYZ" or "Why do I get this error each time LMNOP". Back then it was up to the original creators to patch the content and or private groups to administer their own patches. For example, FAR_Revive was made by one of the founding members of the group I play with, but he has all but stopped playing since the beta. Does this mean we continued to play with the old public version of FAR_Rev? No! A couple other members took up the challenge and fixed bugs and added in new features. FAR_Rev Comfy Branch and A3G Medical were born. Does this mean that the original creator's rights were violated? No. A mod was made of another mod. No tears were shed, no swears were said, and everyone went about their day because a new player had entered the Arma modding scene to help equalize things.

These are people who don't make their own original content (at least not at first), but fix and manipulate the content that already exists. CrustAir is an addon that changes the flight and weapon characteristics of all known air assets in Arma 3. Does this mean that he should go and learn to make his own F18 because he doesn't like how it flys or sounds? No. Would you make your own M4 because RH_M4's textures are too clean? No! With these new players in the Arma community you are going to see a great balancing. No more will you have mods go months without updates, someone else will pick it up. No more will you have weapons that have problems, because a third party patch will be out for it soon. That error you get for shooting a modded gun while using S.O.S? Gone! Because someone made a stand alone patch. At the same time, this is going to help ease new people into the mod community who want to make content but don't have the time or skill to make a full sized big mod. This doesn't stop the first party modders from doing what they wish with their mods, but they shouldn't be upset a third party is also co-developing.

This is for the better, to create a better mod community, no matter how many jimmies it may rustle.

No one was ever bothered by creating, maintaining and distributing addons that are patches/fixes or additions to other mods (in fact this has been happening since OFP time) as long as:

1. You name it differently

2. You don't repack the original

3. You don't redistribute the original, but rather keep the thing as a separate file with the correct dependency (no shame in that)

4. You give credits where credits are due.

5. If you really need to mlod files, or any sort of help for that matter, you'd be surprised how responsive most people are if you ask nicely. Unfortunately, most never do.

With A3, things are simpler than before, especially with hiddenSelections (where applicable). BUT, and that is a big BUT: do you think Saul and Spartan would have been bothered if the CrustAir lad would have made all the changes as a separate addon without repacking? (i read the readme btw, he was saying he needed to repack the whole thing for whatever reason, but that is a blatant lie). Same goes for config changes regarding textures, animations, sounds and so on and so forth. There is really no need to touch the original file, especially since the game can read and dump config files.

If people wouldn't take things for granted like they do, and would just create additional config files for things like bugs or other personal changes, there would be no more DRAMA. as in none.

I remember when someone (will not put down names), repacked and redistributed RKSL Typhoon with some changes, creating bugs that were being reported here for fixing by Rock, but obviously were not reproducible with the original files. Nice way of spending your free time trying to search for the non-existing thing, isn't it?

Edited July 17, 2014 by PuFu
typos fml

[Sniperwolf572 758]

but then again, this is not the subject. Steam is.

Agreed, my main gripe here was that people were somehow equating Workshop to "easy theft". My point was that everything is a potential theft target, no matter where it is.

I fully understand that the key issues with Workshop implementation are:

1.) Rights between Valve and the creator

2.) Takedown and enforcement of author rights in regards to the Workshop

Did I miss anything?

[roshnak 41]

I don't want to say that you are completely wrong, but ...

Originally there were only two players in the Arma mod community. People who dealt with learning .sqf and how to manipulate Arma to their needs and made things like JSRS, Blastcore, ACE, JTD_Fire and then the people who used them. The key thing about the latter is that they always had issues. "Man, ACE would be better if they didn't do XYZ" or "Why doesn't JSRS do XYZ" or "Why do I get this error each time LMNOP". Back then it was up to the original creators to patch the content and or private groups to administer their own patches. For example, FAR_Revive was made by one of the founding members of the group I play with, but he has all but stopped playing since the beta. Does this mean we continued to play with the old public version of FAR_Rev? No! A couple other members took up the challenge and fixed bugs and added in new features. FAR_Rev Comfy Branch and A3G Medical were born. Does this mean that the original creator's rights were violated? No. A mod was made of another mod. No tears were shed, no swears were said, and everyone went about their day because a new player had entered the Arma modding scene to help equalize things.

These are people who don't make their own original content (at least not at first), but fix and manipulate the content that already exists. CrustAir is an addon that changes the flight and weapon characteristics of all known air assets in Arma 3. Does this mean that he should go and learn to make his own F18 because he doesn't like how it flys or sounds? No. Would you make your own M4 because RH_M4's textures are too clean? No! With these new players in the Arma community you are going to see a great balancing. No more will you have mods go months without updates, someone else will pick it up. No more will you have weapons that have problems, because a third party patch will be out for it soon. That error you get for shooting a modded gun while using S.O.S? Gone! Because someone made a stand alone patch. At the same time, this is going to help ease new people into the mod community who want to make content but don't have the time or skill to make a full sized big mod. This doesn't stop the first party modders from doing what they wish with their mods, but they shouldn't be upset a third party is also co-developing.

This is for the better, to create a better mod community, no matter how many jimmies it may rustle.

Dude, if you want to change stuff for your private community, go for it. If you want to make a config that edits someone's mod, but still requires that mod as a dependency, go for it. What makes you think that redistributing a file that is composed of a majority of someone else's work is the best or only option here?

If you want dirtier M4 textures, why don't you ask the original authors of those assets for permission to modify them and include them in Arma, which is what RobertHammer did? By the way, are you seeing a difference in how you went about this?

If you want truly just want to help with bugfixes, why don't you offer those fixes to the original author of the work, and if you really care about getting credit (which I can tell you do), ask for it?

What other mod community on the planet does things the way you're doing them?

[HJohnson 16]

do you think Saul and Spartan would have been bothered if the CrustAir lad would have made all the changes as a separate addon without repacking? (i read the readme btw, he was saying he needed to repack the whole thing, but that is a blatant lie).

Actually, its not a lie. I was trying to help him pack it into a seperate config for out groups content pack a week or so ago. He made these configs about a month or two ago and he wanted to publicly release them. He was having some issue with some variable that wouldn't override for some reason. I was too busy with Hopecore and fixing the sound mods in our content pack to help him in depth. I'm assuming that the reason he got DMCA'd (lol) is because he just said "screw it, I'll just pack up everything".

Same goes for config changes regarding textures, animations, sounds and so on and so forth. There is really no need to touch the original file, especially since the game can read and dump config files.

If people wouldn't take things for granted like they do, and would just create additional config files for things like bugs or other personal changes, there would be no more DRAMA. as in none.

In order to animate weapons in arma you must have weapons that aren't binarized.

In order to properly texture a weapon you must have the weapon in 3d space in front of you while you texture it. What else are you going to do? Diddle around in photoshop, save it as a .tga, convert it to a paa, make the pbo, start up arma, no thats not right, go back to photoshop, and repeat for each and every change? Not saying that I condone the debinarization of content (cause that is against the rules around here) but how else are you going to do it WELL.

I remember when someone (will not put names), repacked and redistributed RKSL Typhoon with some changes, creating bugs that were being reported here for fixing by Rock, but obviously were not reproducible with the original files. Nice way of spending your free time trying to search for the non-existing thing, isn't it?

I believe that would be the fault of the person who repacked it. Hopecore complaints go to Hope and only Hope.

HOPE you won't understand a fucking thing, and you will have to spend days upon fucking days trying to work it out.

I've been spending quality time with blastcore ever since the R3 release. So thats what, 6 months?

[rksl-rock 1301]

i just interesting some people claim theirs stuff can be stolen on SW but not from Armaholic or w/e else mod hub hosting site (moddb, nexus etc.)

Again you seem to be focusing on one detail and, lets say "misinterpreting" it. No one ever said anything like that. Please quote the part where anyone said it.

[PuFu 4600]

Agreed, my main gripe here was that people were somehow equating Workshop to "easy theft". My point was that everything is a potential theft target, no matter where it is.

Once it is in the wild it is in the wild. Most here were equating Steam Workshop with IP violation rather than theft, or so i gather.

I fully understand that the key issues with Workshop implementation are:

1.) Rights between Valve and the creator

2.) Takedown and enforcement of author rights in regards to the Workshop

Did I miss anything?

correct.

I would ad the balance between providing content to a platform that is integrated into the game and it is easier to handle by the user (the visibility is just a sidekick), versus the overall hassle and possible headaches, especially considering the (much more prompt and personal) existing alternatives.

[.kju 3245]

Obfuscation won't really help. Lots of tools available to reverse the process for the most part.

Encryption won't be done. Would require USB stick key approach like VBS has and even that is crackable.

Plus you can just read the data from RAM/GPU mem. Don't be so naive people..

The whole notion about protection is skewed in my view.

Modding since OFP was about sharing and collaboration. Not about hiding away the data/code.

If there will be paid addons, BI will have to ensure those not being (easily) stolen/shared for free within arma (EBO format).

Outside the arma it is about contacting legal authorities and suing people.

Edited July 17, 2014 by .kju [PvPscene]

[smokedog3para 365]

+1 to this (Well good luck with my mod dickshat i HOPE you won't understand a fucking thing, and you will have to spend days upon fucking days trying to work it out. Wtf are you even here you stupid assfucking shit.)

[Sniperwolf572 758]

I would ad the balance between providing content to a platform that is integrated into the game and it is easier to handle by the user (the visibility is just a sidekick), versus the overall hassle and possible headaches, especially considering the (much more prompt and personal) existing alternatives.

I'd say, right now as it is, Workshop for addons is useless for anything serious and it's not even too user friendly. Launcher isn't at the level it needs to be and the integration with the game isn't at the point where it's distinctly better than community provided solutions.

Mission integration on the other hand is pretty great. Subscribe, content available right away in the game, play.

[roshnak 41]

All we need to do is work out how to stop people accessing or unpacking the .pbo once its been packed, a password or encryption key would be required that only the owner or creator has access to for them to be able to unpack the file properly.

I have decided to employ some countermeasures in stopping people editing my work. I was thinking in bed last nite as you do and thought what would really mess up or make it very hard for me if i was trying to edit someone elses work and then i fiqured it out, I will change all the IDs and References relating to my effects to completely random numbers and letters based on a encrypted file which contains the correct names, without the decryption the class effects will be just a babble of numbers like 0278743b1 what effect is that for, only i will know because on my encrypted file i can simply select decrypt as i have a private key on my end and then i will be able to see what that ID actually means. The other person will have to go thru hundreds of effects and lines with no reference to what that effect is for and start the game each time to test for changes to see what its for and that will take fkin ages. To me it takes 2 seconds.

Can I just say that it would be a real shame if things were handled this way?

There are a bunch of people who have learned a great deal about modding Arma from looking at how other people have done things, and encrypting .pbos would be a surefire way to kill any hope of that happening in the future.

I understand that you're upset that people are uploading modified versions of your work without your permission (and that the guy doing it is so insufferable about it), but this seems like a real overreaction that has the potential to do more harm to the community than he is doing.

The same thing kind of goes for obfuscating your code. If you want to do that, it's your business, but you should know that there is a thriving modding community built around a game with obfuscated code.

I hope we don't let a couple of jerks ruin things for everyone.

[zooloo75 834]

Can I just say that it would be a real shame if things were handled this way?

There are a bunch of people who have learned a great deal about modding Arma from looking at how other people have done things, and encrypting .pbos would be a surefire way to kill any hope of that happening in the future.

I understand that you're upset that people are uploading modified versions of your work without your permission (and that the guy doing it is so insufferable about it), but this seems like a real overreaction that has the potential to do more harm to the community than he is doing.

The same thing kind of goes for obfuscating your code. If you want to do that, it's your business, but you should know that there is a thriving modding community built around a game with obfuscated code.

I hope we don't let a couple of jerks ruin things for everyone.

There are plenty of resources to learn from. If one requires to look at someone's source code to know how to do something, then they themselves haven't put enough thought in how to do it.

[PuFu 4600]

Actually, its not a lie. I was trying to help him pack it into a seperate config for out groups content pack a week or so ago. He made these configs about a month or two ago and he wanted to publicly release them. He was having some issue with some variable that wouldn't override for some reason. I was too busy with Hopecore and fixing the sound mods in our content pack to help him in depth. I'm assuming that the reason he got DMCA'd (lol) is because he just said "screw it, I'll just pack up everything".

It is still a lie: the reason stated in the readme was something along the lines: there is no other way to do it, because the original creators are shit at writing configs. Simply because it is easier to write on top of existing code rather than create a separate one that overwrites the original, while being separate file, doesn't make it right.

I was actually talking about hand-anims, which are external .rtm files and are config based.

If you are talking about RH work, i can tell you now that most if not all the models were originally created for CS. You can go through the same channels and get permission (just like he did) to use those same meshes (some are even free to use without permission for any other non-commercial work).

In order to properly texture a weapon you must have the weapon in 3d space in front of you while you texture it. What else are you going to do? Diddle around in photoshop, save it as a .tga, convert it to a paa, make the pbo, start up arma, no thats not right, go back to photoshop, and repeat for each and every change?

I was talking about adding more mud and alike to existing texture rather than doing it again from scratch.

If we are talking about from "scratch", the easiest thing for texturing is doing your own UVs as well, the way you like it. That most likely means creating the whole model from scratch as well, or at least the UVs.

The real question is: have you ever got in contact with the original creator?

Not saying that I condone the debinarization of content (cause that is against the rules around here) but how else are you going to do it WELL.

Yes, you do condone the debinarization (it is absolutely obvious), you just can't say it here with having a ban hammer on your head.

I believe that would be the fault of the person who repacked it. Hopecore complaints go to Hope and only Hope.

weirdly, especially since you've done the same thing and repacked and existing addon, instead of writting a separate, independent file...

[bad benson 1733]

All we need to do is work out how to stop people accessing or unpacking the .pbo once its been packed, a password or encryption key would be required that only the owner or creator has access to for them to be able to unpack the file properly.

I have decided to employ some countermeasures in stopping people editing my work. I was thinking in bed last nite as you do and thought what would really mess up or make it very hard for me if i was trying to edit someone elses work and then i fiqured it out, I will change all the IDs and References relating to my effects to completely random numbers and letters based on a encrypted file which contains the correct names, without the decryption the class effects will be just a babble of numbers like 0278743b1 what effect is that for, only i will know because on my encrypted file i can simply select decrypt as i have a private key on my end and then i will be able to see what that ID actually means. The other person will have to go thru hundreds of effects and lines with no reference to what that effect is for and start the game each time to test for changes to see what its for and that will take fkin ages. To me it takes 2 seconds.

and that is exactly the wrong reaction and totally would justify the guys stance who redistributed your work. why would you not want people looking at your configs? that is how everyone (EVERYONE) learns things. be it arma 3 vanilla configs or configs from other modders.

the only problem i see with the guy you had trouble with is very bad attitude and an intrusive way of distributing his minor changes to your work. if you also have a problem with him and others learning from your work then you only contribute to his view that all/most modders are not only protective about their individual work (with good right) but also the know how that is needed to do the creative part.

while that would not make his view true, since there are many different modders with different views, you would set a bad example.

[HJohnson 16]

there is no other way to do it,

As I said, he's having a problem with a flight pattern variable from Arma 2. If its there, it negates his flight characteristic changes. Setting it to 0 doesn't work. He needs to find a way to get rid of it. This is a big problem that both I and crusty have noticed. Many things ported from Arma 2 still uses Arma 2 things even though there is new things to replace them (like muzzle flashses). I'm coaching him through it right now and we may have found a way to get those old A2 variables out. If he can't get the variables out, the only other way to override the flight patterns is to redo the mod itself. Why? Because from what I understand, many A2 ports don't use A3 flight systems, they still use A2 variables and a patch can't get rid of something, it can only add to.

because the original creators are shit at writing configs.

Sounds like Crusty all right, ha!

If you are talking about RH work, i can tell you now that most if not all the models were originally created for CS. You can go through the same channels and get permission (just like he did) to use those same meshes (some are even free to use without permission for any other non-commercial work).

Robert Hammer doesn't animate weapons, he ports them. I'm talking animate ala me or Toadie2k. Also for the Tigg M4 animation I made, I did get permission from Tigg. But this was mainly due to the source files being readily available rather than most other weapons in Arma 3 being behind locked doors.

I was talking about adding more mud and alike to existing texture rather than doing it again from scratch.

Me too. Unless you want to go through the process I've already explained to make a texture, aka opening and closing arma 50 times, its much better to just have the weapon in front of you. I'm not talking about a new texture, hell it could be a camo on top of. Just looking at it in photoshop, getting it in game, and then hoping its fine in game is not efficient.

weirdly, especially since you've done the same thing and repacked and existing addon, instead of writting a separate, independent file...

Hopecore is now an patch. However, it initially wasn't due to convenience and insuring that it would work.

[roshnak 41]

Robert Hammer doesn't animate weapons, he ports them. I'm talking animate ala me or Toadie2k. Also for the Tigg M4 animation I made, I did get permission from Tigg. But this was mainly due to the source files being readily available rather than most other weapons in Arma 3 being behind locked doors.

Have you tried asking for permission and the files required to create animations for those weapons from the author? Although, it's unlikely you would get it as you've got kind of a bad reputation around here.

Me too. Unless you want to go through the process I've already explained to make a texture, aka opening and closing arma 50 times, its much better to just have the weapon in front of you. I'm not talking about a new texture, hell it could be a camo on top of. Just looking at it in photoshop, getting it in game, and then hoping its fine in game is not efficient.

I've got a larger question. Why would you want to just add some dirt to those textures instead of creating new ones, anyway? How does having 20 tweaks of the same assets constitute innovation or variety? Aren't you tired of seeing those same CS models from 2010 in every Arma game?

By the way, should this discussion be in another thread?

[zooloo75 834]

@HJohnson: You come off very cocky with your (actually OpticalSnare's) mod.

Just to quote you from the Workshop...

"...So prepare for a bigger HC release to complement the BC release."

You flaunt around HopeCore as if you are competing with BlastCore when in fact you would have nothing if OpticalSnare never made Blastcore. You are taking his work and extending it without his permission. Sure, that may be modding, but permissions are an important aspect that you fail to realize. You're clearly incapable of creating your own original work and have to rely on the piss-poor excuse of leeching off of someone else. You go about it completely wrong, and appear to try and take a majority of the credit for Optical's work.

I know I speak for the modding community when I say that you executed this completely wrong. Seeing what you've done to respect OS' rights by having just a replacement config file now, you are on the right track, but for the sake of not appearing as a belligerent, disrespectful asshole, obey Optical Snares wishes as he is the author of the content that you're so blatantly abusing.

These morals are not only present in modding, but in life. The way you do things here reflects what kind of person you are in real life.

Edited July 17, 2014 by zooloo75

[reyhard 2082]

As I said, he's having a problem with a flight pattern variable from Arma 2. If its there, it negates his flight characteristic changes. Setting it to 0 doesn't work. He needs to find a way to get rid of it. This is a big problem that both I and crusty have noticed. Many things ported from Arma 2 still uses Arma 2 things even though there is new things to replace them (like muzzle flashses). I'm coaching him through it right now and we may have found a way to get those old A2 variables out. If he can't get the variables out, the only other way to override the flight patterns is to redo the mod itself. Why? Because from what I understand, many A2 ports don't use A3 flight systems, they still use A2 variables and a patch can't get rid of something, it can only add to.

well...

that's very strange since you can make completely new class with only path to external model mode so it's more likely you trying to find excuse

class blabla_newaddon_blabla: Plane_F //we don't inherit heck no magic variables override problem
{
   your blablablabla code
   model="js_jc_fa18\JC_JS_FZ_FA18E"
   blablablabla
};

anyway, it's way offtopic...

[yxman 90]

they should shutdown the steam workshop addon thing... it's the same like steam workshop missions, a digital software dump.

[HJohnson 16]

Why would you want to just add some dirt to those textures instead of creating new ones, anyway?

In this example? RH_M4's aka Tiggs textures are too clean for a battlefield. Why would you go re-bake the textures instead of dirtying the ones that exist.

Also, having 20 tweaks of the same things implies that you have 20 different people learning and creating content, even if it is the same thing. Think of the TF2 mod community, not everyone can model and animate a full character. Some people can only animate pre-made objects, others can only model and not animate. Why would you create a community and a "moral" system that negates that not everyone is willing or able to learn how to do EVERYTHING. I.E. after manipulating BC for the past 6 months, I'm confident I could make my own mod. But why in the world would I do that when the framework already exists and you just need to manipulate some values here and there.

I'd rather have more people learning how to manipulate content through and easier venue that have everything locked behind the "You didn't ask the elders on how to mod the game, therefore you will never know" dogma that Arma 2 operated under.

[Opticalsnare 12]

In this example? RH_M4's aka Tiggs textures are too clean for a battlefield. Why would you go re-bake the textures instead of dirtying the ones that exist.

Also, having 20 tweaks of the same things implies that you have 20 different people learning and creating content, even if it is the same thing. Think of the TF2 mod community, not everyone can model and animate a full character. Some people can only animate pre-made objects, others can only model and not animate. Why would you create a community and a "moral" system that negates that not everyone is willing or able to learn how to do EVERYTHING. I.E. after manipulating BC for the past 6 months, I'm confident I could make my own mod. But why in the world would I do that when the framework already exists and you just need to manipulate some values here and there.

I'd rather have more people learning how to manipulate content through and easier venue that have everything locked behind the "You didn't ask the elders on how to mod the game, therefore you will never know" dogma that Arma 2 operated under.

Your shit wont work in the next update shit machine, i have changed the method of writing my configs they will be almost impossible to read and edit unless you have the original config file to reference the effects to which you wont have. So when you open up my config again in the next release your be faced with a big fo sign. Btw if you do magically get through my measures that i have employed to MY WORK and start editing MY WORK i will simply change the ID's again which takes about a min for me because obviously i have the orignal and you don't, and everything you did will be broken in your release and you will have to start all over again constantly fixing your release. Bye fucker

[HJohnson 16]

And to think, you are this mad because someone does't want lemonade yellow explosions in their blastcore. Pretty sad dude.

[haleks 8212]

I know I speak for the modding community when I say that you executed this completely wrong. Seeing what you've done to respect OS' rights by having just a replacement config file now, you are on the right track, but for the sake of not appearing as a belligerent, disrespectful asshole, obey Optical Snares wishes as he is the author of the content that you're so blatantly abusing.

These morals are not only present in modding, but in life. The way you do things here reflects what kind of person you are in real life.

+1

Excellent post; it says everything about this guy.

---------- Post added at 22:19 ---------- Previous post was at 22:13 ----------

And to think, you are this mad because someone does't want lemonade yellow explosions in their blastcore. Pretty sad dude.

Are you that dumb? Or did you fail to read the latest posts?

Edited July 17, 2014 by Pepe Hal

[zooloo75 834]

And to think, you are this mad because someone does't want lemonade yellow explosions in their blastcore. Pretty sad dude.

Hey dipshit, it's his mod so he can do whatever the hell he wants with it. You're causing all this bullshit because of your own stupid personal preference and the false entitlement that you as a user of his work don't deserve.

You are not a modder, just a pathetic, disrespectful leech who figured out that they don't need any skill or talent to upload to the workshop.

If I edit a mod to my liking, I'm not going to fuck over the author like you did. I'd ask for permission to distribute my version. If the author declines, I'll keep my PERSONAL version to MYSELF. You clearly did this for the attention, and all of your idiot followers inherit the same mental capacity that you lack.

Now tell me how you are improving the modding community? Don't give me some bullshit illogical statement like you've given to others. You beat around questions to justify your shitty existence. I'd like for you to prove me wrong.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

Edited July 17, 2014 by zooloo75