Addon & Mission Standards

[blackdog~ 0]

I was very impressed by the Battlezone 2 Community Project - Forgotten Enemies campaign back in 2001 or 2002. It was almost a total conversion, and it was the only real mod for Battlezone 2. I think it was partially because the developers didn't release any modding tools or anything, but I think the way that so many people came together to make such an outstanding modification was truly terrific.

The names and website are all since forgotten but the modification surely made a mark on all who played it...

(that last line sounded poetic )

Here's a little background about it..

Quote[/b] ]Forgotten Enemies is an expansion pack created by two of the original developers of BZII along with members from the game's community. It takes place a good time after the events of BZII, and adds 2 new alien races, the Hadean & the Cerberi, to the game and features an entire new story. (The story however, follows the events of the 'Scion' plotline, rather than the 'ISDF' plotline, in which the Scions are destroyed.) In this expansion pack, the ISDF, looking to shed any association with the embarrassment suffered under General Armond Braddock, change their name to the EDF, or Earth Defense Force. They currently share an uneasy truce with the Scions who have not yet forgotten the wrath of Braddock. The Scions, while scouting in space, report a disturbance coming from a wormhole. This transmission is cut off, however, leaving the EDF to go on the defensive. The 'disturbance' turns out to be the Hadeans, another race, whose intentions are unclear. Later on, the player encounters the Cerberi, a race of mechanical beings whose motive is also uncertain.

I kind of expected to see my standardization initiative shot down but I think that we're having some good discussion... please continue...

[vektorboson 8]

Well, standards are fine, standards are Ok, but not everyone wants to adhere to them.

I'd say, that some single modders or some conspirative teams should work on a standards proposal, post it and then just hope that enough people will accept and implement it in their addons/missions.

No need for a committee; modding is just for fun!  

[DrBobcat 0]

I think the best way to enforce some sort of standard would be to have a few sites (such as OFPEC) be designated as certified addon distributers who only host approved addons. Of course this wouldn't solve all the issues and if too stringent, it could completely backfire and lead to less addons being hosted on the site than if they hadn't begun to enforce such a rule.

It's just a thought,

dRb

[crashdome 3]

I think the best way to enforce some sort of standard would be to have a few sites (such as OFPEC) be designated as certified addon distributers who only host approved addons. Of course this wouldn't solve all the issues and if too stringent, it could completely backfire and lead to less addons being hosted on the site than if they hadn't begun to enforce such a rule.

It's just a thought,

dRb

All I see from this type of idea is a group of jaded individuals attacking each other when someone's addon isn't "approved".

I like the idea of a simple "best practice".

Although I like the idea of more people working together in groups more than on their own... perhaps even going commercial with BI's support, but that is my own personal dream I guess.

[DrBobcat 0]

I think the best way to enforce some sort of standard would be to have a few sites (such as OFPEC) be designated as certified addon distributers who only host approved addons. Of course this wouldn't solve all the issues and if too stringent, it could completely backfire and lead to less addons being hosted on the site than if they hadn't begun to enforce such a rule.

It's just a thought,

dRb

All I see from this type of idea is a group of jaded individuals attacking each other when someone's addon isn't "approved".

I like the idea of a simple "best practice".

Although I like the idea of more people working together in groups more than on their own... perhaps even going commercial with BI's support, but that is my own personal dream I guess.  

I guess I should have been more specific. We need to come up with a set of basic guidelines for all addon makers to follow. A site would host addons meeting these guidelines - no questions asked. They would not act as a middle man. If someone sends in their addons and their addons meet the criteria established by us (not the site), their addon would be posted as news and hosted for download.

Not too complicated in my mind but we have to make sure these guidelines are not too crazy. Hell even the naming process, such as OFPEC's is a great step foward. I just really, REALLY do not want to see addons that are missing LODs, use JPEG texture, etc.

But this is all very much in the air and perhaps we could just get a lot of consistent, high quality addons by the use of a common communication portal (like even this site! ). Luckily we will all know a lot more about modding with this game than what we did know with OFP. We were starting from square-one at that point and ArmA modding will be virtually the same.

I can't wait to see what all you gurus will create! Let's just try to have SOME kind of consistency this time around, ok? Especially when it comes to ballistics and armor values...

- dRb

[fer 21]

@ Dinger:

Totally agree with your point about external dependencies being a huge 'barrier to entry' for users and addon-makers. JAM was probably a poor example to use, since it became more than a 'standard', and in fact introduced (supposedly) common PBOs. Moreover, as a topic JAM seems very emotive for a lot of folks here.

In truth, what I continue to advocate is the idea of guidelines (not rules) which are offered to addon-makers as a set of best-practice notes on issues such as poly-counts, texture usage etc. (again, this is not an exhaustive or in any way refined list).

In recognition of the fact that addons are used in many different gameplay contexts (such as SP vs. MP, or skirmishes vs. large-scale battles), within such guidelines there might be several distinct definitions of best-practice, optimised for each context. So, for example, differing notes on poly-counts if the addon (or version thereof) is to be optimised for large-scale MP instead of SP.

Your idea about documentation is also spot-on. Within BAS we spent quite a lot of time working on the format of the ReadMe file, although we could and perhaps should have taken it much further. I agree that by asking addon-makers to provide comprehensive notes on how their work is constructed, we encourage the overall quality of work to be improved (if you have to write it down, you have to think about it).

@ BlackDog

LOL - don't be discouraged if you have not had an overwhelming response to your initiative, because I suspect a lot of folks are giving this thought (but not yet expressing it publicly). I certainly didn't mean to sound like I was 'shooting it down'!

Good though your forum is, you might want to consider keeping the discussion here (perhaps in a new thread which is about the standards themselves, and not their raison d'etre). It just means one less forum to register on and check, and we're all here now.

@ all

Again, I suggest that the goal here is not to 'agree' a single set of guidelines through discussion, but rather for several different individuals or groups to devise and publish alternatives and let the community (of both addon-makers and players) make the selection organically over time.

So Blackdog's initiative is a great idea - but having an alternative, perhaps more, would make the situation even better!

- Fer <TZW>

[.kju 3245]

same thought here. at this point (means before ArmA release / real details about the technical part)

there is no need for specialised separation.

[R3MF 0]

how do Jam and CAVS fit into AA?

the question of standard is important because there is a huge catalogue of excellent OFP mods that are easily importable into AA that will be released soon after AA debuts.

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

My thought may be a way off, but I think that allowing missionmakers to change addon's config values (possibility to include mission's own config files within pbo or by tweaking classes in description.ext) could at least solve problems with unbalanced addons from different makers.

It would of course bring a certain dubiosity for the players, for example in one mission the tank would withstand two RPGs in rear armor and in other mission four. Also, this might open some new ways for cheating.

What should be standardized too is mission names :

1-4_C_HeadHunter for a 1 to 4 players, Coop mission named HeadHunter? more? less?

plus those who add "@" to be the first mission displayed...

maybe ArmA allows us to determine an icon on the side of the mission name to say "coop mission" or "deathmatch"...

Mission naming convention has of course been tried for Ofp, but not many adhered to it. As it would be with other standards. That is why I think my previous thought, even with its disadvantages, is better (for addons). For missions, maybe some tags by game server showing type should suffice. Rather than try to solve insolvable (forcing standards) we (I mean BI, this probably cannot be done by us) should circumvent it.

Ofp mission naming convetion (from 2003)

[Metal Heart 0]

It would be really nice if there was metadata to sort and search missions instead of only filenames. Something like:

Mission name: blablabla

Mod: modname

Requires addons: arma_base, bis_camel

Type: yadayadayada

Author: urnamehere

Version: 1

Min players: 2

Max players: 34

You'd still have a problem with filenames but... such metadata could be used by an external tool to automatically rename the files to match the naming convention of any server.

[blackdog~ 0]

Also, another thing people (addon makers and mission makers) need to do is <span style='color:red'>name your readme the same as your addon or mission</span>. Seriously. Why do so many people insist on readme.txt as the filename?

Edit: Not really sure why this text is smaller than the rest :(

[fer 21]

So ... did this topic die? Or is it just too soon for us to be drawing-up some decent suggestions (in the absence of ArmA to give us a baseline) ?

[Average Joe 0]

Thumbs up from me Fella's, organisation is needed

[Aeon 0]

Quote[/b] ]We would release an independant addon similar to JAM [...]

WHY ?! Why do you opt for a third addon requirement (with all disagreements implied)

I suggest to make a simple webpage with values. Addon-makers could visit it, and correct themselve their cpp upon those standards.

[crashdome 3]

I still think this can be somewhat alleviated by having more addon makers and mission makers working together to create a real MOD and not just a "unit" or "vehicle". I've played FDF, WGL, BAS units, etc.. all of them are different and I load whichever one I want up when I want to play them. This is not much different than say a HL2 mod or UT mod. By creating a library of units that is so expansive and so generic and standardized we are forgetting why people do this (for fun). Could we not simply take ideas (like JAM or such) and simply create a library off of them and leave everyone else alone?? why does ALL units ever made need to follow some single set of guidelines?

How about group A go and make their guidlines and group B go make their guidelines and let people who like A over B flock to A and create units under those and those who like B go over to that group..etc... I think making a single guideline is silly because then you are thus stating that exotic ideas and revolutionary methods are not allowed unless they are approved.

My thoughts are that there just are not enough "Teams" willing to work together and stay together to make a whole MOD as for other games... and why? because they can't get any more benefit than 'ah yeah I had a hand in that...' ...

I think these groups/teams should be allowed to sell their goods. This "must always be free" crap is whats really holding alot of people back from putting in some real quality work.

[wamingo 1]

I think these groups/teams should be allowed to sell their goods. This "must always be free" crap is whats really holding alot of people back from putting in some real quality work.

Who or what are they being helt back by?

BIS is the judge of what must be free and what not. They own whatever you make that's to be used under their engine - I think, or that's usually how it is anyway.

The UT and HL engine/tools need to be licensed to be used commercially. I don't know what BIS's policy is but I could imagine that they'd want something similar. Do you know?

If they'd allow it I'm sure all it would take is contacting BIS and talking things through - show bits of initial work, plans and such.

[Daddl 10]

If all you manage is impose a naming convention standard for missions on major mission hosting sites, I'll be more than happy

But really, It wouldn't hurt anyone to follow such a simple thing.

Uh, having been one of those people who tried to get such a naming convention to work in practice I have to say that this is impossible. See just these two threads as examples for people trying something like that:

first try: 2001/2002

second try 2002/2003

result of the second try - this was adopted by a number of big servers but never managed getting to be a real standard all around. The system was quite good as it also sorted missions by type, maximum number of players and addons in the mission list.

[.kju 3245]

you know why?

... there is a world outside of this forum ...

(i.e. MOST people didn't and don't even know about it - not speaking of these who don't care anyway)

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Putting up a website with values for the most known vehicles would be pretty nice... I will see what I can figure out, BI might be helpfull towards ArmA values prior release.

[crashdome 3]

I think these groups/teams should be allowed to sell their goods. This "must always be free" crap is whats really holding alot of people back from putting in some real quality work.

Who or what are they being helt back by?

BIS is the judge of what must be free and what not. They own whatever you make that's to be used under their engine - I think, or that's usually how it is anyway.

The UT and HL engine/tools need to be licensed to be used commercially. I don't know what BIS's policy is but I could imagine that they'd want something similar. Do you know?

If they'd allow it I'm sure all it would take is contacting BIS and talking things through - show bits of initial work, plans and such.

That's exactly my point. There are tons of sims out there with all kinds of addons both freeware and payware where the tools don't "hold back" the authors by imposing strict ownership rights. Besides those, (HL and UT) the engine is commercially available. Does BIS offer their engine commercially? I am unaware of anything stating it is.. and on their website is no indication of any contact information other than possible "General Information".

Valve Software has direct information regarding purchasing their source rights.

[EDIT] I guess what I am saying is that the lack of standards isn't the only problem because the core of the problem is lack of alot of addons working together as a single pack. If people were allowed to earn some dough by making addons, we would see alot more "complete packs" that followed strict guidelines (assuming no one would pay for crappy addons). Although they might be different from anothers, the majority of lack of cohesiveness has been alleviated.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Great news - mission creators can attach addons to their mission-file. Rendering it alot easier to distribute missions using few addons over server protocol.

Of course really big addons wouldnt be too smart to include, but its definately a great thing for small addons like flares, markers, weapons etc.

[DrBobcat 0]

Wow, that is great news and not something I was expecting. Regardless, excellent stuff! Your examples are exactly what I think the system was designed for. I can see the door for cheaters slowly begin to close....

- dRb

[wamingo 1]

I hope this won't get abused by attaching large addons then.

Transfering 1mb to every user when the mission file is 10-50kb is annoying.

It's bad enough that custom music/voice takes a lot of space.

web hosts and downloaders will also be annoyed if missions attaches large or common addons.

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

Great news - mission creators can attach addons to their mission-file. Rendering it alot easier to distribute missions using few addons over server protocol.

Of course really big addons wouldnt be too smart to include, but its definately a great thing for small addons like flares, markers, weapons etc.

Does that mean that we can integrate simple "config-only" addons for existing addon pbos (with models, textures, sounds, etc) into missions like I said on the previous page? This can solve ballancing different addons.

Now only if the meta-tags for missions were possible and we do not need naming standards (to which no-one would adhere) whatsoever.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Great news - mission creators can attach addons to their mission-file. Rendering it alot easier to distribute missions using few addons over server protocol.

Of course really big addons wouldnt be too smart to include, but its definately a great thing for small addons like flares, markers, weapons etc.

Does that mean that we can integrate simple "config-only" addons for existing addon pbos (with models, textures, sounds, etc) into missions like I said on the previous page? This can solve ballancing different addons.

Now only if the meta-tags for missions were possible and we do not need naming standards (to which no-one would adhere) whatsoever.

I asked Placebo this question - he doesn't know, and there is noone to ask according to him. We must wait until someone else asks (!?).

Oh, and BI won't release damage values for current vehicles/weapons neither. They see no reason to do so prior release.

What a disapointing day