lockdown on modding

[GAU-8 0]

EDIT!!!! i accidentally hit wrong key making me think my topic got DELETED...not POSTED... so here is a much much much shorter version of what i wanted to say.

not saying "NO MODS by users!" just saying "mods made by users, but approved and distributed by BIS' website"

short and sweet.

(ive tried doing a search so that placebo wont beat me again..but do a "mod" search and see what happens! (every thread is about a mod... one way or another here :P)

[Fork122 0]

Bad idea.....

Mods are what has kept OFP alive so long, I doubt anyone would still be playing vanilla OFP.

[coderdfox 0]

LOL no way in hell!

I can see a BIS approved mod or a (@WGL, ECP,FURR) only mod.

I hear you with no being able to get into any servers but isnt that what OFPwatch was?

[Ukraineboy 0]

I agree with the "principle" of this... That is I hope that the form of modding we see in ArmA will be more centralized large modding teams releasing era specific/ genre specific mods instead of the odd sparse hedgehog mod release we got now where people release little things here and there. Thats the problem, we have too many small little mods instead of larger mods that most other game modding communities have.

[Llauma 0]

The addon handling needs to be done better but a lockdown would be suicide. Sure it's annoying trying to join new servers but the option would had been no servers to join at all.

[Scillion 0]

I believe a central bis approved collection of mods would be great. Every game on the net would say. AA, expansion pack 1, expansion pack 2, bis approved modern mods, bis approved ww2 mods. This games may have other mods too but everyone will have these to start with.

The version # would change once a month. so one download a month and your caught up. All mods would be zipped in one file for download. ect ect....

[benreeper 0]

The problem is not with mods but with addons and mission makers who throw in an addon to a mission that is most likely not needed or they have so many addons that they do not know if they are using them or not. If mission makers only used "entire mods" when they made a mission, people would only need to start the mod.

--Ben

[GAU-8 0]

LOL!!!!!

i actually thought I DELETED this TOPIC (.....because it somehow POSTED, ( i hit a wrong key)... i couldnt say exacly what i wanted on my mind....and it was going to be a long one. especially the way how my train of thought works.. didnt want you guys to go "what is he trying to say..?" so i tried to delet ...oh well

well, since its up i might as well try to finish what i MEANT to say (rather than looking like someone fishing for a flamewar witha rant!!!

SO,.....er....i guess ill go on.

take a look at IL2-STRUMOVIK....

the creator keeps the most of the game locked down. about the only items you can mod is music, pilot faces, and aircraft skins.

all flight dynamics/ game conversions are only allowed by the creator his team, and INVITED guests.

when the add-on is up to snuff to the creators standards, he/developerthen releases it in either a patch, OR an ADD-ON cd.

that way you can still have the added content but it makes everything so much easier for online players...to play.

turning crap on/off, having to download last minute items really sux, just to play online. there is no such thing as "stock" players online. the sheer amount of stuff out there... maybe its me, but do i have to download everybodys freaking mods just to find a "compatible" map/server i can play in...?

much like VBS 1, aftermarket add-ons can come out like "modules" these which can/may be created by GOOD mod creators, (as well as BIS) then the content is sent to BIS, they (BIS) in turn, add in all the (locked to users) ballistics/movement/actions. or whatever is needed. then after that new content is offered in a free patch, or pay for add-on, at supplied BIS server.

im not AGAINST mods, understand, im just wanting content to be useable with all other items without having to swap parts out/remove this/remove that/put this in....stuff.

if ballistiscs and such are wrong by bis, they can alter it in next patch, rather than everybody putting out thier version of what they think is "right"

long story short, controlled modding environment, prevents tons of wasted time/work for many, and approved ones get to see light of day in official patches, or add-ons, that way its not a "stock game" but everybody has the SAME content to work with .

[franze 196]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here - by only allowing BIS to decide what gets to be in the game is far too draconian, and by doing so, the game's lifetime would be destroyed almost entirely.

I don't deny it makes multiplayer very difficult, but at the same time I would not trade that for the massive variations of character and individuality expressed by a lot of folks who bust their butts to make stuff for this game. IL-2 is a completely different genre and I don't think the same measures that apply for it will apply for ArmA.

[Phleep 0]

The Aussie servers are well managed so I find it quite exciting on my infrequent visits to take a moment to download some new content and go on the server knowing that it is guaranteed to be a different experience to last time. This is unlike all other games I have played online where you can be assured that it will be very repetitive.

[coderdfox 0]

I think the new Join in Progress will change how the game is played and modded. Most good servers will have a website saying what they are using and/or will have a pack to download.

While I understand where your going, but I think its the wrong way. Just trust the Servers to make sure everyone wont have a problem.

[funnyguy1 0]

The idea of creating patches with realism is nice, hovewer those should also be in an addon format, just to be able to replace it with another one or delete it if needed.

Bis said that there will be some kind of cooperation between bis and addon makers, so that they could relase their stuff (the best quality) with the maximum efficiency. Also, when downloading addons you would know that the ones from the official bis servers and with this, "blessed by bis" are the best in terms of quality and compatybility.

That would also work with bigger addons and addon packs, besides, addons could be sorted by bis into categories, so there could be 3 major addons replacing the current sky, and everyone would can play online using one of them.

That`s a matter of the "BIS-approved-addon" license.

So, no, locking wouldn`t be a good idea imho. You would still have a bunch of carwars, GI Joe, Lega WarZ and Lost World mods, and that`s cool, the only difference would be addons enchancing the realism and gameplay of the core ArmA relased in special patches or something compatible with every server...

...or I`m still dreaming

[Sepe 1]

I didn't see the starting post as the creator edited it away, but I assume it's about no mod support because many servers use mods and thus it's confusing to join.

The solution: Only play in servers that have websites that state which addons and mods are needed. I almost never play in public servers (not that I'd play much MP anyway) 'cause I can just as well go into a mature passworded server - even if the password is on the webpage of the server, the CS teens won't get through. Or if they do, they'll be kicked off.

[GAU-8 0]

i must agree with SCILLION (and FUNNYGUY1! ) that is EXACTLY what im talking about! new mod content from the users but DIRECTLY available from BIS ONLY! once the mod is sent in, they check for consistency, content, comaptibility within the game, they configure/key it in for the game and the only place you could get a mod is from BIS official "modding site", where you need is ONE download a month/ 6 months or so, with everybodies mods for the month that have been APPROVED. im not saying legowarz/ comical stuff cant be done, just make sure its all consistant, so that EVERYBODY has the same game with all new content.

well thats my rant. i wont try to push it too much though! i mean there is NO point in trying to change anybodies minds..if the game doesnt ship that way .right. :P

i understand your reasons though for not liking it and from what it sounds like, BIS might have a better handling of it this time around anyways. sounds good! well have to see.

[Sen†ry ˛°°ł 0]

i must agree with SCILLION (and FUNNYGUY1! ) that is EXACTLY what im talking about! new mod content from the users but DIRECTLY available from BIS ONLY! once the mod is sent in, they check for consistency, content, comaptibility within the game, they configure/key it in for the game and the only place you could get a mod is from BIS official "modding site", where you need is ONE download a month/ 6 months or so, with everybodies mods for the month that have been APPROVED. im not saying legowarz/ comical stuff cant be done, just make sure its all consistant, so that EVERYBODY has the same game with all new content.

well thats my rant. i wont try to push it too much though! i mean there is NO point in trying to change anybodies minds..if the game doesnt ship that way .right. :P

i understand your reasons though for not liking it and from what it sounds like, BIS might have a better handling of it this time around anyways. sounds good! well have to see.

Sounds good, but sounds bad too. First what im thinking about is, why we dont let it go how in OFP? it was ok, you can get the mods on OFP Fansites, and soon on Arma fan sites, and i think BIS has got to do better things as to check the mods or something like that.

For me, its better we dont change anything about mods, let it so like in OFP.

How i have said, a good idea but a bad one too :P other people think other than me

ltrs

Sen†ry ˛°°ł

[dinger 1]

Well, there are three problems:

A. Most addons/mods are crappy.

B. Those that aren't obviously crappy, are crappy in subtler ways.

C. The current addon system, combined with MP, leads to a confusion of addons: it takes work to install addons, and not having the right addons causes CTDs.

A. Most addons are crappy. Yup. No harm in that; amateurs are learning the OFP system. With scripts, we learned through mission scripting, but there is no such thing as "mission modelling". There are a kajillion crappy M4s out there. Who cares? Let people play in the sandbox -- no harm in that.

B. Those that aren't, are crappy in ways that aren't readily apparent. I'll divide these into two (non-exclusive) groups: incompetence and audience-building.

1. Incompetence: even the best mod teams don't always use professional practices. It takes time and experience, and doing a complicated project for free already uses plenty of both. So some nice (or not so nice) models are missing lods, won't binarize properly, or contain memory defects (*cough* CoC_Cobra *cough*). Sometimes a single script can sneak in on a sub-effect and sink performance for the whole system. "Improvements" to a base BIS system might depend on an imperfect understanding of what BIS was doing, and why the game shouldn't be "Improved" that way. But, most commonly, the shortcomings are in MP. Multiplayer development is tough, and MP testing is harder. You have to monitor traffic to look for desynchronising effects, and you have to test in extreme conditions -- 1000 ping is fun for nobody, but the addon has to work there. And if you calculate the man-hours required for MP testing, it can get costly very quickly: a two-hour, ten-person testing session is roughly equivalent to a weeks' work for a single member of a free addon team. So makers skimp on MP, and we see things such as localization errors, my favorite being "lag-reducing" effects that createvehicle 100 objects per client: the more people connected, the worse the desync.

2. But some of the crappiness comes with an agenda. Addon makers with some experience know that the crowd that posts in the addons and mods:complete forum here is not identical to the crowd that plays them in-game in MP settings. But approval here will guarantee wider distribution and acceptance. There are two ways to pander to the crowd here:

a. Super Lethality

OFP is a big sandbox, and there's a whole subcommunity that downloads almost every addon and plays with it. That's cool, and I would guess that ArmA's "Library Mode" will be especially designed for them. But one way to impress this crowd is to make really big explosions, or superkiller rockets, or what have you. As an artillery fan, I like splattering whole companies of troops at once too, but I will observe that there is a correlation between the config hit and indirectHit values, and approval on the FP1985 forums.

b. SuperModelling

I love these screenshots for new mods that have perfectly round cockpits, and multiple 1024x1024 (or even 2048x2048) textures coating their absolutely beautiful vehicles. That's great. But that 6000-polygon helmet is going to have an impact on system speed. And what works great on Desert Island won't necessarily run well in combat. Someone should put on their next T-80 model the following writing on the barrel texture:

"If you can read this, you're already dead"

C. The current Addon system is complicated and a PITA: No need to discuss this in detail.

So what should be done?

Well, first, I'll repeat something that the Introversion people keep saying in every interview about their upcoming title DEFCON: Content is Bad.

Specifically, unless their business is addict-farming a la WoW, game companies these days need to restrict their content-generation to a minimum, and management of external content should be even less. BIS is not going to pay a team to evaluate addons and mods and determine their viability; at the best, you can hope for tools that allow third parties to do that.

Already we have for OFP a content filtration system: working up from individual addons to mod groups to "supermods"; it just needs a little tweaking.

Provide a forum for individual addon makers, mod groups, and "supermods" to publicize and discuss their works, and mod groups will recruit individuals, and "supermods" should perform the jobs of quality control and integration.

As for solving the "Crappy Addon" problems, the solution there is to make "sensible addons" easier. You could also release a required-for-ArmA pbo compressor that includes an automated validation program to make sure the thing is in spec, and generate a "stats report" that can be posted along with the addon, e.g.,:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

M4 Model by Freddy

Polygons:

LOD0: 150,000

LOD1: 76,000

LOD2: 40,000

Textures: 3 2048x2048, 2 1024x1024

Memory Usage: 300 MB

better yet, insert that data into a Config Class in the addon itself, and let us view it in the library. That way, we know what kind of trouble we're getting into.

[shinRaiden 0]

Complexity is it's own lockdown.

[.kju 3241]

good post Dinger.

yet its all down to the question if "BIS is interested in this at all"

or if it becomes again "here it (ArmA) is, have fun guys".

(both very much oversimplified).

there is no easy answer to that from BIS's point of view.

still i hope that its not again "let the community take over",

ArmA - especially everything related to MP - needs strong and

dedicated support by BIS.

(lots of different ways and possibilities here)

actions like the Mapfact.net Workshop participation and others are a start -

lets see how it turns out.

[Heatseeker 0]

BIS shouldnt interfere with what comes out or not, even the pro's will mess up sometimes...

I have always prefered a light addon instalation for:

a) optimal performance

b) consistent visual quality

Big mods can lead to bad performance due to a overwhelming amount of content..

OPFR resistance MP has always been addonless for me, and i never had a problem finding an addon free pub game.

Let people be creative and make and release what they can to the best of their abilities, server owners and players wont be forced to use the addons if they dont want to.

Arma will use all new high quality stuff so people wont feel the urge to add, modify and replace content as much.

I dont think that either we or BIS should worry about it at this point .

[Hrast 0]

Keep it free.

Any imposed central planning would just create an own set of problems and would slow down the addon/mod making while ultimetley solving nothing.

To force modds into this kind of slavery where they make a product but then have only very little control over it (no decision on release date plus you mention ultimatly BIS could redefine it) is grossy unfair.

Modders themselves will (and have) in a competitive modd market with countless mods avaliable realise a popularity of their mod is partly dependant on the accesibily and ease of use and will improve that element the more mods competing for "customers" are there. And the most modds will appear where modd making is most free.

To force them into a Kolhoz to prevent a minor trouble a user might have finding, updating or choosing the right modd (that has been satisfactory adressed already anyway) is extremley selfish.

Central control doesn`t work. Or do I have to remind you of USSR`s grain imports?

[wamingo 1]

In my opinion, half the problem is that everything has been scattered across the internet very badly. There were a few that tried to bring things together (ofp-editingcenter? ofp arena?), but mostly all failed somewhat because they either put too much focus on the addons and less on missions, or they simply weren't providing the proper tools to keep things neatly together and less chaotic and hence kept things interesting.

You have to remember that we're not playing addons with missions, we're playing missions with addons. They need to be kept together somehow. And the focus needs to be relatively even or we end up like now with 30 mods of alternative m16's and about 1 mission that uses random addons... Silly innit.

So if you ask me, Half the solution would then be to have a centralized hub for missions and addons with proper categorisation and focus on the important mods yet still hosting mostly everything else as well. It won't be terribly difficult to do, but it would obviously take money to host and time to do. ofp-editing center could possibly do it.

By proper categorisation I mean SP/MP/MPcoop for missions won't cut it. We need a subsection under this with something like No-Addons/Major-Addons/Minor-Addons and some reasonably powerful sorting methods, and searching tools perhaps as well. Sorting by Islands, Date, Author, Mission Name etc would be useful.

Minor addons would be stuff that doesn't have much impact on the community, like some no-name aircraft or alternative m16 model. While Major addons would be packages, total conversions and large or important addons, stuff like BAS, WGL, CTI and so on.

Addon sections will probably need a lot more categorisation. As for instance, model addons like a new helicopter, won't really mix well with graphical changes like sky improvements. So more and clear subsections would be useful here.

And perhaps mission makers should have to use an account to upload their missions so they're attached to their name for easier sorting and stuff.

Standardizing things through this way would be wonderful as well. Eg everything needs to be prepped in a zip file, in a specific folder, no addons in mission zip, no missions with addon zip, you must announce addons needed, version of ofp/arma it was made for, both on the website before download and in readme.txt, blah blah, etc, or face having the distribution, to use a popular term, "nuked"...

All this combined, could possibly bring the standard of mods and missions up to a slightly more professional level which I think could be a good thing.

If you ever played world of warcraft you might have come upon some of these mod download hubs and they're pretty good examples of how to do things, in my opinion. Of course there are a couple of clear differences but the principle is the same. Curse-gaming for instance comes to mind.

this got a lot longer than I wanted... sorry.

[maxqubit 1]

(slightly ot;) if there would be an ArmA/360 version, users could make mods, the best once could be 'signed' by Bis/Publisher and put as payed DLC. Part of the profit could stream back to the creator.

Now, say a mod was to be dl'd 5.000 times. And the creator got 1$ per dl. That would be 5.000$ for the creator. Could be an extra motivation to create quality mods and distribute them trhu BIS/publisher and DLC

... with this posting i just note that some things of xbox/dlc are not 'bad' in principle

[deanosbeano 0]

cough

Quote[/b] ]"Certified Content Developers" will probably supported by BI in a special way and will get more information plus answers to their questions; also they get the signatures for their PBOs.

source

i think they already stated that there will be a change,altho i think alongside this official way the old way will be possible.so maybe, a server will only need to state this server only uses CCD.

pls forgive if i am wrong,but i assumed this meant that registered addon makers will get extra support and pbo sigs. thus creating an "elite" class of addon makers ?

[PeterEyres 0]

If BIS maintain their good community links, I could see this working and be beneficial.

If for example, all addons were submitted via a forum to BIS employees to check over for quality (names, tags, no code bugs) and assign the signitures mentioned (to prevent cheats) this may well work out.

Another, easier method: Design a decent server browser filter system. Stock Official stuff (for those that don't like messing about), the various total conversion mods. and then finally the server with misc bits and bobs in use.

Whilst Its obvious that there are some mod producer that release addons of far higher quality, those further down the ladder still enjoy it and are offering time and inspiration to the community, and if you look hard enough, you can find things way out of the spectrum of your normal addon material. Constructive criticism is needed for improvement and development. Mods have kept the lifespan of OFP going for 5 years now, and BIS themselves have admitted that is has been such a crucial aspect to their success.

Please BIS do not impose restrictions like EA's BF2 etc. If you are going to restrict the mods for ease of use rarther than cheating, then it must be done properly and in FULL, SWIFT and EFFECIENT consultation with the community (the addon consumers) and the addon developers.

[jtec 0]

Keep the system as it is. Just offer better support for addon makers. Flashpoint is still played due to the large amount of quality addons that people have worked hard on for free. It also provides BIS with future staff as we all know a few guys that have been taken on to develop the future titles. So what if it takes time to download a addon.

What you guys are saying will make a system where people will have to pay for addons because someone in BIS will have to check the addons that get submitted to them...