Future Development of addons/mods (Arma and beyond)

[Terox]

a couple of years ago i had a vision for a "World" mod in ofp. I even went to some lengths to try and create it

Following link gives an idea what i wanted to create)
http://www.ofp-zeus.com/nuke/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=594&sid=be7c1f2967f2fa03a7b30c58c576a4d6

The mod failed for various reasons,  some of which aren't pertinent to this discussion, however the experience i gained while trying to create it, is.

The standard OFP mod comes in 2 flavours
a) Cosmetic, (eg good models etc)
b) Configged, (eg trying to create a different feel to the gameplay)

Very few mods combine the two, however when this does occur, the mod proves to be very succesful.

In our particular modding community, we had good scripters/ config writers but severely lacked in the modelling department.

What i found exceptionally frustrating was the amount of addons out there which had within them the content we required , but which we were unable to utilise for various reasons:
The following being the main reasons:

• Config & models within the same .pbo and only gaining permission to use the addon in it's original state
• Too high a cosmetic quality on an addon (eg can only have a couple on the mission before the fps is affected)
• Permission to use the model, but no mlods will be supplied

.

The problem with (1)
Everyone thinks their config values are nigh on perfect, yet if this was the case, there would be no need for anyone to ever change the values, however there is.
Creating a config to as perfectly match the actual specs of a weapon or  vehicle doesnt really work in ofp and to utilise that particular addon in a mod, would most certainly require its config settings to be tweaked or altered in some way to achieve better gameplay balance

The problem with (2)
Why create an addon that is so good, it cannot be used in gameplay, especially in mp.
Yes there are obvious arguments for making as good a addon as is possible to show of the prowess of a model maker, however much thought should also go into using the addons ingame
Some communities want 7 platoons of reasonably well textured, reasonable polygon count mbt's on the map, not just 2 highly textured very high polygon count models etc

The problem with (3)
A mod may want to add, or remove or create a hidden selection from a model, eg different headgear and therefore create slightly different units within their mod from the same model, or slightly alter the appearance.
Folks dont want to "steal" the credit for somebody's creation, they just want to slightly modify it to their own particular specs

I may be wrong with my conclusion here, but if these problems could be negated, then the content of the mods that are created would be far better than we have at present, and these mods would also be created more quickly

Addon makers would also see an increase in the use of their addons.


Seperate pbo's (config & model)
If an addon was seperated into 2 distinctive pbo's,
a) The model pbo
b) the config.pbo

then just taking that simple step, mods would then have a far greater choice of content, creating their own config for the models and the model addon that had been so painstakingly worked upon by the creater would be seen by a greater audience.

In return, when a mod then re writes the config to its own end, adding supporting scripts etc, the original creater could then utilise their scripting knowledge and update his release config with the more optimised or enhanced systems, such as perhaps, a cargo carrying capacity, or rotor failure system, etc etc

I would really like to see wherever possible an addon released as 2 .pbo's
PBO_A = the model pbo
PBO_B = the config pbo.


Model quality.
There needs to be a balance found between what looks good and what plays well
High and low res/polygon count models etc, 2 model.pbo's with 1 config.pbo perhaps


Mlod availability.

ooh touchy subject, might be a good idea to be just a little more open to suggestion that a lot of addon makers are at present


thats my 2 penneth, it would be nice to see these changes occur, or some similar solution found, it would improve the mod/addon community with arma etc

[Dinger]

I'll bite.
I didn't register for an account to read what you were talking about in the other thread.
Okay -- separate pbos with configs/scripts and models/sounds/other Big Data: that's just good practice, since, after a certain amount of quality control, bugs will likely occur in configs/scripts, but not in the other parts.
Why make a mod so pretty that it hampers gamplay?
Well, you're assuming that everyone wants the same gameplay, and everyone makes mods for the same reason. The OFP engine is a big playpen, and people like to do different things with their toys. Some just want to admire their super-hi-poly contributions; others want to play with them.
Others like the glory a really pretty and lethal addon brings them in the Addons forums.

Oh, and there is no perfect config, because there are different ways to express reality in OFP's limited vocabulary.

Ultimately, you're not going to succeed by asking modmakers to do things. Your best bet is, as you suggest, to have a team of dedicated madmen who will redo other people's work to make it all balance out.
But that takes three things:
A) Said team of dedicated madmen. They need to be mad, because they're not doing the "fun" part of addon making, but rather the crap work, of fixing it.
B) The faith of addon makers. I'm sorry, but you're not going to get much support for asking everyone to make their stuff completely open source. We're not all in it for the glory, but it sucks to come across someone proclaiming the glory of addon X, and how much better it is than your addon. Then when you go and look at the addon, you find they lifted wholesale your stuff, without giving credit. The other side of it is support and reputation. When someone adapts (with credit) your addon, and screws with What Is Not Meant To Be Screwed With, all of a sudden you have to support every end user who thinks "your" work is broken. This in turn, hurts your reputation. Now, I know reputation is a dirty word in an open, collaborative environment like this; and I'll concede that the most unknown team can produce the best addons. But, unless you're a complete nut and doing something impossible,  it really helps to have a reputation for putting together solid addons if you want the faith of other addon makers.
C) Reputation to convince a significant portion of the community to use your addon. Let's face it: it may be a "Community", but it's not an equal community, and there are constantly folks jockeying for position, trying to parlay into social dominance things such as forum prominence, modeling skill, control over a server, access to the sources of power, and so on. Those in a position of power can move the large (and usually silent) parts of the user base -- the people who don't give a damn about these power struggles -- into adopting their toys.

[Terox]

I think you misunderstood my point here Dinger.

What i am trying to point out is that there are a hell of a lot of addons out there which for various reasons are not being used .
The way they have been designed or packaged being a major factor in that

if they were simply packaged in a slightly different manner, as in your comments about good practice, then this would make it more likely that the addon makers work would reach a larger audience

At present, if an addon is packaged along with it's config all in 1 pbo, as is often seen, then it massively restricts it's use in mods.
Mods being a far better setup that an addon pack, due to their balancing of all vehicle weapons contained within

One of the major problems we had as a config based mod creation team, was getting hold of models to use. I'm not talking about making the mod look cosmetically good, just simply adding content to it, even small items such as small inflatable boats etc.

So the message i am probably trying to get over to folks is.

If you simply want to spend time making an addon for a limited audience, then carry on as normal, however if you want to see your addons used in mods etc, think about how you package them.

and @ Dinger, yes a set of guidelines for good practice would be a step in that direction. I dont believe one exists

[klavan]

Few words about open sourcing an addon.
The two small things I've released are in fact open source, but they're created with the intention to help island makers to add those objects in their maps in a easy way and to avoid forcing the final users to download additional files. I think this is one of the few occasions where open sourcing are really usefull to reach the final objective: to make your work widely used.
However if one day i will decide to create and to release something different and more complex, let's say a tank, I don't think i would make it open source.
Why? Well i'm with Dinger when he say there are some people in our community who are fighting to gain visibility and fame (I really wonder why.........), even by using unfair methods and without caring nothing about the meaning of some words, like respect, and he's right when he say the vast majority of of the community is easy to be "joked" (no offence to anyone) by those elements.
I fully understand the EULA rigid policies of many mod teams (BAS for example, but there are many others).
Klavan

[Terox]

 to a point i agree with you to some extent klavan, and didnt really want the discussion to run off on the EULA tangent..

your typical ofp addon at present comes with a config included within the pbo (for the purpose of this discussion i am referring to model biased addons, eg units, vehicles or weapons, not system addons, such as CoC_Ns)
 
now if the config was in a seperate pbo, and permission had been granted to include it in a mod, you have additional options open to you, without altering the addon in any way, no need for mlods,  etc etc

at present, if a decent vehicle pack was released, the chances of this being used in a mod are minimal, simply because the mission editor would make available classes of vehicles which hadnt been balanced for use in the mod.

now having a seperate config.pbo, would allow the mod team to not use the addon's release config, and would allow them to use their own specs, without altering the models or breaking into the pbo.
and lets face it, the effort that goes into the model creation far poutweighs the effort that goes into the config



This thread isnt intended as a what u must do type of thread, it's simply a way of making folks aware that there are different ways of doing something and if they want their addon to be used more widely, then this approach would allow that.

if they dont want to reach a wider audience, then simply carry on releasing an all in 1 model/config.pbo and then the specific addon might get used in sp and the odd mp server

Going slightly offtopic, but to explain the issue on a practical level
Our own game server's addon pack does not contain any vehicle's or unit's or weapons pack's , simply because there are very few if any addons made by different studio's that synchronise well together, there are nearly always balance issues. Which is unfortunate because there are some cracking vehicle/unit addons out there


Our addon packs consists of  system addons, islands and buildings and we rely on a mod for units/vehicles for the "balancing" reason

we once tried addpacks with vehicles and unit, this simply caused too many issues.

That was just to give you a practical example of how packing these addons as an all in one pbo effects their usage.

It's simply an option, if the addon maker doesnt want to split the .pbo into 2 elements, then expect less usage and a smaller audience.

[klavan]

I can see your points more cleary now, and I have to admit there are several valid reason for your "suggestions" to be turned into something more tangible than a simple good idea.
Making separate .PBOs for the config and the model is a very good way to preserve model's integrity and to make it more availables for mods but I still think the main reason for some mod teams to refuse giving permissions to edit their own works is the fear to see their efforts and the time they spent into it wasted by some ignorant and unrespectfull people.
I talked about BAS in my previous posts and I wrote that's nearly impossible to obtain such a permission, well I partially lied: a couple of months ago I received a go to export and edit Tonal's units and objects for a projects that still sleeps in my HD. How I did it? I simply asked one of BAS guys and he said ok. I really think if more people would do the same many problems you've encountered would be already surpassed.....Unlucky we're not living in a perfect world........  :-\

About mlods: I'm with you, however there may be some problems with the final size of the archive the final user would be forced to download only to play around with the newly released addons. I think it would also difficult to persuade an addon maker doing it and some people would be ready raise a riot for this, better would be to create something like a mlod depot somewhere (a new OFPEC depot maybe?  ) where you can put your own open source stuffs into.

Klavan