Conversion Mods Discussion

[mrcash2009 0]

Hi,

Something thats been niggling me for a while is the whole thing about mods that are large conversion, SLX / XAM (off the top of my head but there are clearly more) etc etc.

I just wanted to see others views (modders and users) on these type of mods that change many features and if you think they are a good thing in the long run or not and could be better.

To explain, I notice that allot change features that seem to be already well addressed in small main stay established addons like effects/smoke/sound/UI/ballistics/scopes/weapons etc.

I often wondered why these larger mods try to change those areas and keep them fixed into there own mod world as it were, in some cases meaning it effects the other standalone mods.

My question is, do you think these mods / future mods should be constructed in a more modular/parallel pbo approach with separate configs so its then up to the user to disable certain pbos of certain elements. IE: If a conversion had sound, it has a pbo with config so you can simply move it and not use it, same with effects, etc etc.

I think this way of working with the community is great, I seem to steer away from conversion mods because they modify things I already have a great replacement for. On the other hand I love some of the features these conversions have, and yet unless they are released as separate addons (which thankfully Ive seen some of late) you cant get to use those nice features, kind of "all or not at all".

The biggest and most obvious argument is "just start the game and use our mod and play, then use everything else in another session". But then you have issues of saving missions and using editor, and then realizing they are now dependent on elements you "must" have the whole mod for (one reason I moved away from them). You just cant mix and match is my point.

Im not knocking any particular mods, I think they are quality stuff, but isn't it time to start looking at adapting them a bit more to work along-side other things, or at least take into account what users might have already they don't need to be modified?

I'm interested what modders make of this, so please post your views, just wanted to understand "why" IE technical reasons or if its just a decision to keep it housed as one, or are more modders coming around to the idea of modular approach.

PS - I do understand you need the whole thing for a campaign & missions made for the conversion, but then after thats played out what next is my point. I don't think my points are all correct or justified, i'm really just posting to raise some views as im interested.

[dmarkwick 261]

Well as an addon maker as opposed to a mod maker I'm all in favour of a modular approach you're right in that people generally all have a slightly different idea to what represents a great mix.

One thing, perhaps the hardest thing, is for the author to realise that not all his ideas will be liked universally. As an example I separated my smokeshell viewblock from the smoke effects addon because I came to the realisation that the smokeshell viewblock addon might appeal to a different subset of ArmA users, who might not use it because they didn't want the entire smoke effects thing. It would have been easy to just say that if people want smokeshell VB then they must use my smoke as well, but you have to realise that functionality and eye candy should really be separate. I guess this should go for all areas of modding.

[PTV-Jobo 820]

I agree fully. I mean I'm grateful for all the hard work and dedication these guys have done and continue to put in, don't get me wrong. I just get a bit aggravated by the restrictiveness that comes into play sometimes by these big ones. I mean they are all great, but as DM touched on, sometimes people have different visions on what and how they wish to play. Not everyone will like all the features of one mod if it means losing the ability to play with other things they desire to.

So making things more modular would be an excellent choice for sure. It works out the best. Both for those that wish to play solely with every feature that mod delivers and for those that wish to utilize certain areas of the mod while having the ability to use other addons and such from other creators.

[mrcash2009 0]

Question is, who will defend the all-in approach and please give some reasons. This isn't a loaded thread to blast anyone, Im genuinely interested in what the big-boy mod makeover creators think.

@DM - yes it was around the time you did the separate releases that kind of made me think more about how it could and even should be done I guess.

The way I see is you have :

1. Units (Solder/vehicle)

2. Weapons

3. Nifty scripts (AI, movement etc)

4. Sounds

5. Campaign/mission(s)

6. UI (screens / mouse etc)

now split them up into well named and split configs per pbo / pbo group that don't fall over it you move one of them, Id say you got a pretty well constructed Conversion mod that not only can be used all-in but users get the mass benefit of using elements and features that they love with the mainstay mods. Maybe i'm repeating my point but when i first got into ARMA and mods this was what I assumed they would be like ... then I realised otherwise.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

The approach we are taking is a modular one too.  First release the separate addons.  Then when we have enough units make a config based (ie inherit the addons classes etc and replace the stock BIS ones) total conversion mod.

- It saves on the huge mod pack downloads

- uses previously released addons

- Smaller file size for the Total Conversion mod

- Easier bug fixes and updates

- Preserves original Author's identities and doesn't infringe copyright

I think its the way to go.  The only issue i can foresee is that people will complain about having to download lots of addons that perhaps they missed previously...?  But in our case im assuming the British community will download anything Brit related anyway.  So it shouldnt be a problem.

[wld427 1705]

I like Rocks approach. A large MOD that uses smaller addons to build it. That way if you really do not want to tottaly convert your ARMA to just P85 or just VTE, then you can chooses the addons you want to play and have a good time with that.

[JdB 151]

I can offer a "why not", although not really for effects mods or replacement mods.

The main reason that we as a total conversion mod would be less likely to fully integrate a modular system, is that we aim at delivering a complete experience. How users would like to adapt that experience to their liking is not primarily our concern, as we're just aiming to reach our own goals and end result. It would mean more work for something that we don't see as a necessity to our dream of creating a completely different era/geographical location/type of warfare.

There are plenty of mods that already use separated configs, pbos and other files, not with later 3rd party editing in mind, but simply to keep things as simple as possible, so that changes can be made easily and efficiently.

Of course making changes requires changing the config, but that is not really our fault. If BIS were to make a modular system for addons/mods, you could just use parts of a mod as a plugin, which is not so simple to do for simple modmakers.

[Synide 0]

My question is, do you think these mods / future mods should be constructed in a more modular/parallel pbo approach with separate configs so its then up to the user to disable certain pbos of certain elements. IE: If a conversion had sound, it has a pbo with config so you can simply move it and not use it, same with effects, etc etc.

It's all manually manageable atm... but in the future as things get more and more complicated I do believe there needs to be some architectural enhancements/alterations to the Addon heirarchy structure.

Possibly some sort of contextual or situational infrastructure.

These sorts of things need to be driven from the Developers end though.

[benreeper 0]

I think the all-encompassing mod is good for newcomers to the game. Most MP missions do not use addons because players need to find them all and set them all up prior to playing the mission.

It's allot easier (for the average gamer) to install a mod with an install program, then start the mod with the executable (not saying I'm in favor of executables) and then once in game, seeing what servers are playing your mod, finding the game you like and joining it: no fuss, no muss. This is the system that most other games use. I'm not saying it's better, just easier.

It's great the Arma offers all of this freedom but it makes it harder to run the game in MP because you need to have every little quircky addon the server is using in order to play on that server. Rounding up all of these addons, installing them and starting the game up correctly to use them is not exactly user friendly. It's even a barrier to an OFP vet like myself. I believe that this a detriment to new user enjoyment.

I think MP is important to any game nowadays. Also ease of play that will give a first new player a good impression is most important to the success of a game. That is vital if we want to be playing Arma five years from now.

--Ben

[mrcash2009 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think the all-encompassing mod is good for newcomers to the game.

This is very true, I just found that I did this and was new to the game, and then slowly realized what I "couldn't" use and that my save games (and mission editor play about saves) etc were stuck with it once I started to venture into the mod world later on.