Hypothetical Mod Collaboration

[ReVee 10]

Now, first off I want to say that I'm not a modder, and I'm not entirely sure what modders are capable of, I know there are certain limitations, both from the game and from a personal viewpoint, and I get that. This is just me airing out something that's been on my mind.

Arma 3 is a great game missing a lot of key features. Servers are fragmented by having an array of mods that not everyone else has, other servers don't accept anyone with mods at all, and going on a server that allows mods but doesn't have the neccesary information can lag both the players and the host. I think our issue is solely entrenched in this fragmentation. We need to set a standard for mods that allows for everyone to enjoy their Arma experience more.

I want to use this thread to ask the community what they want to have in such a mod. What features they feel would be neccesary, and what features they would rather see done away with. No, I'm not implying we need an ACE copy, but rather something that caters to all players (up to and including realism).

My main idea is to have a modular mod with a core ruleset, with smaller modules adding more focused bits and pieces.

This is my list of features I would like to see in this "core," and I will add an appended list under it with suggestions from the community;

Parent Feature Request:

- Native Fast Roping/Rappeling

- More Comprehensive Weapon Set

- Intuitive Weapon Resting

- Climbing (Walls/Ledges)

- Simplified/Advanced (Toggleable) Medical System

- Carry/Drag/Put in Vehicle system for wounded soldiers

- Immersive/Fun HALO/Paradropping

- Better Parachute mechanics

- Advanced Infantry HUD mechanics (Server decides whether it's on or not)

- Folding Map/Better GPS Mechanics

- Ammo Sharing Capabilities

- Better Item Management system

- Better Animations system

- More Added later...

Community Feature Request:

[BL1P 35]

Wait for ACE

[lordheart 1]

There's a couple mods that cover a few of those features:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?180258-Combat-Space-Enhancement-0-2

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?178253-Authentic-Gameplay-Modification

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?160054-TMR-Modular-Realism

[ReVee 10]

There's a couple mods that cover a few of those features:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?180258-Combat-Space-Enhancement-0-2

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?178253-Authentic-Gameplay-Modification

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?160054-TMR-Modular-Realism

Arma 3 is a great game missing a lot of key features. Servers are fragmented by having an array of mods that not everyone else has, other servers don't accept anyone with mods at all, and going on a server that allows mods but doesn't have the neccesary information can lag both the players and the host. I think our issue is solely entrenched in this fragmentation. We need to set a standard for mods that allows for everyone to enjoy their Arma experience more.

The issue isn't that the mods aren't out there, the issue is that I have 35 gigs of addons that I can only use when I'm playing single player, and even then I either have to cheat it in with MCC or hope someone makes a mission around it.

We need a standardized, modular addon that encompasses ALL aspects of Arma. From Real Realism to "Hollywood" Realism.

I love using AGM or TMR, but they aren't widely accepted on multiplayer servers. We need something that allows servers to control how people play on it, while still allowing a mod that people can throw on and easily find a server for it.

Wait for ACE [/Quote]

ACE Only caters to realism and immersion. As I stated in my parent post, there is more to the community than hardcore realism fans now.

[Gunter Severloh 4054]

I want to use this thread to ask the community what they want to have in such a mod. What features they feel would be neccesary, and what features they

would rather see done away with. something that caters to all players (up to and including realism).

Thats the problem, the game is a very custom, and personal game, we all however share the same experience with vanilla, no matter what BIS does with it, thats a large scale, maybe really get involved in the dev aspect of the game and seek features and such to be implemented in vanilla, where at a larger, well everyone will experience almost the same game, and mods will have to work around that.

I think our issue is solely entrenched in this fragmentation. We need to set a standard for mods that allows for everyone to enjoy their Arma experience more.

The servers you see are all owned and operated either by individual players, or rented from GSP's.

Unless there was some change in the function of the game that allowed for a "mod pack to be allowed that meets a certain criteria that is shared with everyone considering

the game is the same for everyone in terms of version minus the dev aspects, I cant see it happening unless BI changes something.

Again its really not up to the modders, but the folks running the servers.

My main idea is to have a modular mod with a core ruleset, with smaller modules adding more focused bits and pieces.

Haha, COWarMod, I've already done it in Arma2CO, 230+ addons and mods to boot, mod allows you total customization,

as for Arma3 well the thing is theres tons of testing to be done.

Hope that im not missing the concept of your idea here.

But as I know and many others know whom have experience and have been in the series a while,

you cant just start putting mods together into one mod and expect each mod to work like they do on their own, so it has to be scripted somehow

where each individual mod is not overwriting each other.

In another perspective a modular mod as suggested could be a mod like ACE for example where the configs and files are all designed to work together, of course ACE

isn't entirely modular where you can just yank some files and its all good, but i see where your going with the idea concept.

We need something that allows servers to control how people play on it, while still allowing a mod that people can throw on and easily find a server for it.

Theres already code for the server that allows what mods that can be accepted on a server aka verifysignatures=2 (probably 3 now for Arma3 i forget been a while)

that was to replace the parameter in the server.cfg (equalModRequired = 1;) its more of a safety mechanism, as well as a check to make sure the server dont get hacked

while allowing certain mods that the server runs already to be accepted and have keys that are accepted.

As for finding a server with certain mods, that can be done by a program of some sort, sorry dont know of any but would basically be a filter, but trying to get the gist of what

your saying having all servers have this capacity Im assuming this is correct wont work, as said all servers listed are hosted or GSP's, so it would have to be either a program,

or a change by BIS for this to happen.

Just to mention this thread isn't anything new, no pun intended just that the same argument/discussion, ideas have been talked about in just about ever game

in the series Arma wise, there is always that issue with servers not accepting some mods, or not finding servers with what I want to play, ect,.

Mods wont be the answer pushing BIS to implement realism and functional military features in the "simulator" will be the way, you want a standard,

change the vanilla then every server will have the new standard of play for everyone.

[ReVee 10]

Thats the problem, the game is a very custom, and personal game, we all however share the same experience with vanilla, no matter what BIS does with it, thats a large scale, maybe really get involved in the dev aspect of the game and seek features and such to be implemented in vanilla, where at a larger, well everyone will experience almost the same game, and mods will have to work around that.

The servers you see are all owned and operated either by individual players, or rented from GSP's.

Unless there was some change in the function of the game that allowed for a "mod pack to be allowed that meets a certain criteria that is shared with everyone considering

the game is the same for everyone in terms of version minus the dev aspects, I cant see it happening unless BI changes something.

Again its really not up to the modders, but the folks running the servers.

Haha, COWarMod, I've already done it in Arma2CO, 230+ addons and mods to boot, mod allows you total customization,

as for Arma3 well the thing is theres tons of testing to be done.

Hope that im not missing the concept of your idea here.

But as I know and many others know whom have experience and have been in the series a while,

you cant just start putting mods together into one mod and expect each mod to work like they do on their own, so it has to be scripted somehow

where each individual mod is not overwriting each other.

In another perspective a modular mod as suggested could be a mod like ACE for example where the configs and files are all designed to work together, of course ACE

isn't entirely modular where you can just yank some files and its all good, but i see where your going with the idea concept.

Theres already code for the server that allows what mods that can be accepted on a server aka verifysignatures=2 (probably 3 now for Arma3 i forget been a while)

that was to replace the parameter in the server.cfg (equalModRequired = 1;) its more of a safety mechanism, as well as a check to make sure the server dont get hacked

while allowing certain mods that the server runs already to be accepted and have keys that are accepted.

As for finding a server with certain mods, that can be done by a program of some sort, sorry dont know of any but would basically be a filter, but trying to get the gist of what

your saying having all servers have this capacity Im assuming this is correct wont work, as said all servers listed are hosted or GSP's, so it would have to be either a program,

or a change by BIS for this to happen.

Just to mention this thread isn't anything new, no pun intended just that the same argument/discussion, ideas have been talked about in just about ever game

in the series Arma wise, there is always that issue with servers not accepting some mods, or not finding servers with what I want to play, ect,.

Mods wont be the answer pushing BIS to implement realism and functional military features in the "simulator" will be the way, you want a standard,

change the vanilla then every server will have the new standard of play for everyone.

Thanks for the reply, and you have the general gist of what I'm saying, but there's some things I should clear up.

Servers allow for "verify signatures" but that only works to an extent. It's been proven through personal experience and third party anecdote that if a server doesn't verify signatures, and people join with their own mods without anyone having the same thing the server AND the client will lag. This causes issues with servers doing that, and I've found less and less adhereing to this choice.

My suggestion/post is merely asking the community what they would like in a standardized mod. Notice how AGM or TMR utilizes modular PBO's to allow users to choose what they want. If scripters/modders collaborated on a standard of mod (much akin to how ACE was the impromptu standard of A2) then there wouldn't be as many issues as ones found in non key-verified servers.

For Example;

Server A has Standard Mod on the server, and requires players to have this core mod. Core mod has 6 features in it, and the server has a specialized config stating that feature #2 is to be disabled.

Player X Joins server with core mod, which has 6 features. He and the server only use 1,3,4,5 and 6.

Player X doesn't like the server, and joins a different server with the same core mod. This server allows all 6 features.

Both Player and Server use all 6 features.

Server B Uses 2 weapon mods, 1 realism mod, 1 sound mod and a units mod. The Server only allows players with the verified keys to join.

Player Y Attempts to join Server B, is kicked off for not have xxxx.pbo, xxx.pbo, and xxx_xxx.pbo (Server Disconnect)

Player Y Downloads the mods, joins the server and find he didn't like it. Player Y leaves and attempts to join another server and is kicked off because he has mods they don't allow.

Server C uses no mods, but allows unverified mods to be loaded in.

Player Z Has 2 unit mods, 16 uniform mods, 3 weapons mods and a realism mod.

Player Q Has No Mods, both join the server.

Server C Attempts to relay information from Player Z to Player Q, Server doesn't understand what Player Z is doing, rpt spam galore.

Server lags and everyone's framerate drops. Server C is forever abandoned to the great wastes of 0/50 players.

These aren't fantastic examples, but I've seen it happen enough that these are prominent issues here.

Notice how Server A doesn't have to require a lot of mods because this one core mod already has most of the features they want, all they have to do is pick and choose which ones they want to utilize. It's faster for server admins, easier for players, and more enjoyable for everyone. enstating such a standard would be good for the ENTIRE COMMUNITY, and if the core itself was open source, everyone could contribute and have credit for their work.

[L3TUC3 32]

Part of the problem OP is describing is a multiplayer usability problem BIS hasn't quite solved yet. It strikes me as odd that a mod heavy game like Arma doesn't have automatic multiplayer mod downloading/enabling yet. But if the new launcher and steam workshop integration merge together with a multiplayer browser that supports automatic downloading/enabling of mods it'll solve a bunch of problems for the novice mod users at least. I'm pretty happy where it's heading.

As for your mixnmatch dealio it will probably create as much if not a greater a mess as the current situation as everyone will have a different opinion on your list of must haves. You can't please everybody.

[ReVee 10]

Part of the problem OP is describing is a multiplayer usability problem BIS hasn't quite solved yet. It strikes me as odd that a mod heavy game like Arma doesn't have automatic multiplayer mod downloading/enabling yet. But if the new launcher and steam workshop integration merge together with a multiplayer browser that supports automatic downloading/enabling of mods it'll solve a bunch of problems for the novice mod users at least. I'm pretty happy where it's heading.

As for your mixnmatch dealio it will probably create as much if not a greater a mess as the current situation as everyone will have a different opinion on your list of must haves. You can't please everybody.

the idea is to have one core mod that disables and enables certain features based on a config found on the server. This way the server decides what they want, and that's all that really matters. It's the closest thing to a perfect solution that I can think of that still allows Arma 3 to work the way it does.

[L3TUC3 32]

the idea is to have one core mod that disables and enables certain features based on a config found on the server. This way the server decides what they want, and that's all that really matters. It's the closest thing to a perfect solution that I can think of that still allows Arma 3 to work the way it does.

I see. But that's how the arma platform already works. It's just the mods that are the settings.

I'll agree one download is easier than X more, but if the process can be automated for the base game you've got the benefit for this mod pretty well sorted.

Still a neat concept.

[ReVee 10]

I see. But that's how the arma platform already works. It's just the mods that are the settings.

Exactly, and the idea is the apply this concept to the mods themselves. Basically furthering the feature that Arma Servers can enable, while still adhering to a standard that spans across multiple servers. If this became a rudimentary thing to have when playing Arma, servers would/will start using it just to keep with the standard that other servers are using. Monkey See Monkey Do.

[swiftn7 1]

Your idea sounds reasonable, on the first look. But how do you want to determine what should be part of this specific modular core-mod? Some people want the weapon resting, some want jumping, other ones HALO,... not talking about additional content like vehicles, weaponery, gear,...

So I have to agree with Günter: If things aren't in vanilla, it will always be messing-around-with-the-mods.

[ReVee 10]

Easy; Add as much as possible, and let the server owners decide the rest.

Bipod, Weapon Resting, Reduced/Enhanced Fatigue. Add as much as we can reasonably add in, and let servers pick and choose what's used on them.

[swiftn7 1]

You really want to force the playerbase to download another XXGB (which will easily sum up, when "all the necessary things" are put together) for being able to play online? What about the players who WANT it vanilla style. You cannot make mods/addons mandatory, this would drive people away from the game. That''s why BI changed their DLC strategy: They don't want to exclude players from new stuff, but neither they want to force them to buy something.

[ReVee 10]

You really want to force the playerbase to download another XXGB (which will easily sum up, when "all the necessary things" are put together) for being able to play online? What about the players who WANT it vanilla style. You cannot make mods/addons mandatory, this would drive people away from the game. That''s why BI changed their DLC strategy: They don't want to exclude players from new stuff, but neither they want to force them to buy something.

Simple, servers just don't use the mod if they want vanilla gameplay. Otherwise, have the server be config'd to allow people who have the mod on but not use any of the features. This would allow for vanilla servers while still allowing people who use the standard modpack to join the servers.

Besides, the mod gap isn't that big of a deal. I mean, DayZ was a huge hit for A2 and that required manual modloading for some.

[swiftn7 1]

Simple, servers just don't use the mod if they want vanilla gameplay. Otherwise, have the server be config'd to allow people who have the mod on but not use any of the features.

So I as a player, and also the server, would consume storage for data that isn't used?

This would allow for vanilla servers while still allowing people who use the standard modpack to join the servers[/Quote]

What's the sense of having a mod installed, and joining servers which don't use it? Just for the "I could if I wanted"?

standard modpack[/Quote]

A modpack can never be a standard, that's why it's called mod, but I am just a bit picky here. If it shall become standard, it must be part of the game.

[ReVee 10]

So I as a player, and also the server, would consume storage for data that isn't used?

What's the sense of having a mod installed, and joining servers which don't use it? Just for the "I could if I wanted"?

A modpack can never be a standard, that's why it's called mod, but I am just a bit picky here. If it shall become standard, it must be part of the game.

That's a stupid statement to make.

That's like saying because a server disables third person, third person shouldn't be allowed on any servers, because it's not apart of that game.

The idea of this standard is to have something that a lot of people agree the game needs, while adding other things that other people want too. Having this amalgam of different "features" means that servers can pick and choose what to utilize on their own server. If you don't want the mod, then you would have to look for servers that allow/only use a vanilla game. Otherwise the other servers are using 1 modpack (as opposed to a customized modpack for each server). So you download that, and you now have access to more servers.

Mods are an unequivocable part of the ArmA 3 Ecosystem. They, in some cases, make the game what it is. Either BI needs to do a better job of integrating some form of FastDL for servers, or we need to find something standard that has the features we want. It's not a matter of whether or not everyone wants to use all those features because they don't have to, while still using the ones they want. Hell, if you are so worried about that 400 MB, then delete the pieces you don't want, and have your server config state those aren't enabled on the server.

[swiftn7 1]

You might want to discuss here then:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?180958-Why-couldn-t-all-the-modders-work-together-and-make-something-better-than-ACE

[Gunter Severloh 4054]

Either BI needs to do a better job of integrating some form of FastDL for servers, or we need to find something standard that has the features we want.

Servers are independent of the game in one sense, as all files for the server are separate and loaded via FTP, so really it would be the one hosting, or the GSP one rent's

their server from that decides how fast files get downloaded.

Fast downloading I remember with RO (Red orchestra) my friend and I had rented from gameservers, and at first when you join the server if you dont have the map, or texture files,

you will download them.

At first it was slow as hell, but then we made an adjustment i forget what we did but the files were downloading extremely fast after, so from joining to playing it

was like 1-2min sometimes more depended on the number of files and type.

I think PW6 allows you to join a server from their launcher IDK never really looked at it, or has an option too? and from there you can download any required

file for that server and then join it, and then any changes obviously theres an update to that with the program.

Like i said in a previous post, think the option is to push BI, request, whatever to get those features in the vanilla game anyways, then we dont need

to brainstorm about stuff like this and need mods for everything.

Unless some modder who does something for servers, scripts, codes, can build programs knows servers ect,., or you come up with a definite way

that Bis can implement something from your post on the feedback tracker, then i dont see anything happening. A concrete plan and examples of something

actually working somewhere else maybe the best way to get something like this to be implemented too or used.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

I'm curious. Who would make this mod? Or are you saying this should be done up by BI?

[x3kj 1247]

I'm curious. Who would make this mod?

"the community" of course. Like always

If work is to be distributed, it's always "the community".

[L3TUC3 32]

I don't think it's impossible but the scope is very broad. Suiting all contingencies and interoperability between settings is a massive pita to get right from my perspective at least.

I find the topic concept more tangible and interesting than passively suggesting others should do X.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

I don't think it's impossible but the scope is very broad. Suiting all contingencies and interoperability between settings is a massive pita to get right from my perspective at least.

I find the topic concept more tangible and interesting than passively suggesting others should do X.

The problem here is that, yet again, we have somebody who isn't an addon maker, trying to impose some mythical mod "standard" onto addon makers. (I don't mean you, btw, I mean the OP)