hydrocarbn

Devs: do you care about the modding scene anymore?

Devs: do you care about the modding scene anymore?

So, it's been a little over three months since release. The "beta" (unfinished) version of the mod tools were released nineteen days after the game's release, which was admittedly pretty good. Sins, from the early beta period, was advertised as a "data-driven", easily moddable game. At every point this was emphasized: there was even an icon used in a few avatars released that had the Sins logo with a wrench and MODS on it.

It seems, however, that Stardock and Ironclad aren't taking this promise, and therefore, the future of this game itself, very seriously.

My concern at this point is that with both companies working on separate projects that the modding scene has been abandoned. I can count on one hand the amount of posts from the devs in the modding section within the last couple months. I'm not asking why we don't have the "final" mod tools yet, though that's not an unreasonable question. I'm asking why at this point nobody seems to care anymore.

When DoV migrated from Empire at War, it was simply because of these early promises by SD/IC. We were tired of having no control over most of our ships abilities, behaviors, and so forth. At this point, we've been given a lot of neat stuff as far as buffs, abilities, particles and such go. But those are relatively specialized. You can't build a TC mod around particle effects.

Amplifying these concerns is the fact that many systems were designed quite differently from normal RTS games. Was it due to the rush to release? Probably not - they've been that way since the beta. Why are entity files parsed so oddly? Why, in a bizarre change from convention, are "classes" of ships linked to certain shipyards? Who thought this was a good idea when the classes themselves are hard-coded? It's OOP gone horribly wrong. Why can one shipyard have two pages but not three? Why can the other shipyard only have one and five ships? Is this a failure of how the UI was designed, or something deeper?

The fact that these parts of how the game works are so integral makes those who dismiss the problems as being possibly fixed in the "final mod tools" seem more than a little silly. Of course, the fact that we aren't hearing anything makes it anyone's guess.

So, in summary, the question is simply this: with all due respect, do you care? Should we give up expectations of "final mod tools", should we hold out waiting for you guys to even comment on what's going on? Should we continue planning and developing our mods, as if they'll never exist?

P.S.: This is not a new concern. I think I speak for most modders on this: we just want a straight up-or-down answer to this question. I know Haeso's been adamant about it in several posts, and of course many of those in the wishlist thread, as well as some private conversations I've had with other modders. It seems being subtle about it hasn't really worked, so don't take this thread as being as overly argumentative or dramatic, it's just necessary for all of our sake.
62,008 views 69 replies
Reply #26 Top
As a follow up to Manshooter's comments:

The number of allowed explosion entries should be infinite, unless I misunderstand you. Some of the others (number of points on a ship, etc) were intentionally constrained as I said above.


I didn`t think so. You Should check this out. In my past experience(in ver 1.02) game crash everytime in 1 to 5 minutes(very random) even I just copy&paste 3 exist explosion entries (rename though)

OK I`ll try this again myself later. I really hope that I was completly wrong  X-( 
Reply #27 Top
Bailknight, it's possible that this may have been the case in 1.02, I'm fairly certain it has been changed by 1.04 though.

Thanks all for the responses. We're discussing internally what can be done to give you more creative control over some of the elements that you've mentioned.
+1 Loading…
Reply #28 Top
Bailknight, it's possible that this may have been the case in 1.02, I'm fairly certain it has been changed by 1.04 though.Thanks all for the responses. We're discussing internally what can be done to give you more creative control over some of the elements that you've mentioned.


We hope that we'll get a positive response! Thanks!
Reply #29 Top
I find it interesting that people (in other threads) still mention the release of the 'full set of modding tools promised long ago'... then the dev's come around and say that what we have is the same tools that the dev's use or what I assume the consider to be 'the full set'....

Seems to be some disconnection here....

Additionally, I could have sworn there was a dev sponsored 'what do you modders need/want' thread started and responded to extensively shortly around or right after the release of 1.04. I have to wonder if this thread was ignored because now the dev's are asking for this same exact feedback?

Is there a communication disconnection somewhere???

By the way... I love SOASE... but I'm very pro-modder...

Javaslinger
Reply #30 Top
Additionally, I could have sworn there was a dev sponsored 'what do you modders need/want' thread started and responded to extensively shortly around or right after the release of 1.04.


That thread was to see what modders could use in order to help convert mods between patch versions.

The disconnect stems from the fact that what we have now is listed as a "beta" mod pack, and early on IC said that they would eventually release the "final" version of the tools. It was never specified what exactly that would be or contain, so there are some fairly wild guesses going around, as well as some more conservative/realistic ones.
Reply #31 Top
It is very easy. Release the text based version of the variable lists and file templates that you can pull directly from your design document. It would take all of ten minutes and much of our endless reverse engineering would end. You have to have these so please release them. Some of this was coded very logically and some, not so much. Figuring all these variables and files out is taking much too long.

For example, where are Ability icons found? Why in the Buttons_Research_*.tga files of course.

Release the info of modding!
Reply #32 Top
I agree with everyone here, especially with FourAcesII, Annatar11, Bailknight, Javaslinger, and raxiv. To some it all up:

#1 - a GUI or interface would be nice, as other games tend to have their own nowadays, and they make modding easier, but it is not absolutley needed.

#2 - Get rid of the hardcoding. You are holding us back, especially with entity types and Capital Ships.

#3 - Give us a defined list of abilties / variables / hardcodes / etc. This will elliminate countless hours of reverse engineering the game, and trial and error.

#4 - Particle effect editor. Let us create own own effects without HOURS of trial and error. A little GUI would be really nice for this.

#5 - Easier to get NEW CONTENT into the game.

#6 - Make the game less testy and more flexible with errors. We could all use less MINIDUMPS.

#7 - Keep up the current good job you guys do with giving us the update files before the actual update comes out. This gives us modders a chance to update the mods before the game updates.

So far, that's it. I think everything else has already been said.
Basically, give us the tools and ability to let us do what we do best, and that is mod your game to make it better for everyone. That's what modders do, and we live for it. We just get frustrated when it seems like the program itself is fighting us, when it is supposed to be easy to mod.
Thank you for listening to us. I think some of us were beginning to lose hope. Some of us already did, like Uzii. And we now carry on in their place. Good to know that you guys care. We are looking forward to a positve reaction from you.
And I have to say, thanks for making an awesome game.

DANMAN

Reply #33 Top
hey one thing i thought of was what happened to the error messages that came when something stuffed up in the beta? have they been turned into those minidumps that crashed the game? those where realy helpful when somthing screwed up in a mod because you would be able to figure out exactly what went wrong. maby a way of getting those back would be a good idea
Reply #34 Top
Prezo: user.setting. You can enable them.
Reply #35 Top
oh. thanks that makes things much easier... =P
Reply #36 Top
I would definately like for stations to have weapon placements.

Ships that would move around in combat rather than just sit there and exchange fire.

Would also be nice if you released more documentation on how all the things in the entity files are suppose to work, maybe even a simple walk through on what particles nulls are suppose to be included in the models (if any) to make them vent in specific areas, or even for construction animation.

Firing Arc CONTROL the system you have in place where the tangents control the arcs is just not working. (this info is in the manual you realeased with the mod tool instructions) Some arcs have to small so they won't shoot through the ship or turn off when the arc is exceeded.

Definately more weapon nulls at least 1 more maybe 2.

Cloak control. Currently no one has been able to modify the cloak even if you turn off the negative effects.

Shields shouldn't reflect the color of the skybox, if someone knows how to do it differently please let me know.
Reply #37 Top
DEV. I got this error message when I make 15 entries in Explosions.explosiondata

explosionEffectCount exceeds the maximum allowed. 15 requested but only 10 allowed. If a larger number is needed bug a programmer!


Are you sure 1.04 support unlimited explosion entries? I can`t proceed my work with this message for stability.
Reply #38 Top
Bailknight - my apologies... you are correct. 1.04 does not allow infinite effects, but 1.1 will.

More information on some of the other requests:

.) A particle effect editing GUI should be released soon.
.) If you are modding, you should definitely have the user settings for LogOutput and ShowErrors set to TRUE - this should provide you with more error details and less minidumps. We're planning to release a special build of the game for modders which will make it much easier to test your changes.
.) We'd like to provide more details on anything that is confusing or unclear to you (buff/ability system? some file structure?) to cut down on time spent reverse engineering but we're trying to figure out the best way to get that information out there and have it easily accessible.
.) Adding new entity types to the game, or new buff atomics, etc is non-trivial and will require code support, thus testing, new patches, etc. If there is strong support for a particular change (I hear a lot of "let me add fighters to my defense module") it may happen but it is not possible to give this control to the modders without rewriting the engine :S
.) Some of the hardcoded limits will have to stay, just because of engine design choices. We WILL do what we can to clarify what things are hardcoded and to mitigate them as much as possible. For instance, the capital ship limit will be increased (in 1.1).

I hope that clears things up a little.



Reply #39 Top
Bailknight - my apologies... you are correct. 1.04 does not allow infinite effects, but 1.1 will.More information on some of the other requests:.) A particle effect editing GUI should be released soon..) If you are modding, you should definitely have the user settings for LogOutput and ShowErrors set to TRUE - this should provide you with more error details and less minidumps. We're planning to release a special build of the game for modders which will make it much easier to test your changes. .) We'd like to provide more details on anything that is confusing or unclear to you (buff/ability system? some file structure?) to cut down on time spent reverse engineering but we're trying to figure out the best way to get that information out there and have it easily accessible..) Adding new entity types to the game, or new buff atomics, etc is non-trivial and will require code support, thus testing, new patches, etc. If there is strong support for a particular change (I hear a lot of "let me add fighters to my defense module") it may happen but it is not possible to give this control to the modders without rewriting the engine :S .) Some of the hardcoded limits will have to stay, just because of engine design choices. We WILL do what we can to clarify what things are hardcoded and to mitigate them as much as possible. For instance, the capital ship limit will be increased (in 1.1).I hope that clears things up a little.


hmm... so... I understand that there won't be anything done to give us more freedom and everything hardcoded stays hardcoded?

Reply #40 Top
.) Adding new entity types to the game, or new buff atomics, etc is non-trivial and will require code support, thus testing, new patches, etc. If there is strong support for a particular change (I hear a lot of "let me add fighters to my defense module") it may happen but it is not possible to give this control to the modders without rewriting the engine :S


I figured so, but that's probably one of the most popular wishlist items. I realize it's not trivial, but if possible it would be great if somewhere down the line if a few more basic things were added. From reading the modding forums a lot, I would say the following few things are asked about most frequently (though the last one is a personal wishlist item :P):

- Making non-fighters move like fighters, without all the drawbacks of the "Fighter" entity type. Yes with a lot of ships this is bad, but mods can inherently be balanced around fewer ships where this would not be a big issue. So in essense, having the option of making a current existing ship entity type have the property of fighter movement.

- You already mentioned the capital ship limit, so yay :) Thank you!

- Adding command points through research, rather than only # of craft to squad. The DPS increase can be made the same either way, but the effect of "I got a whole extra squad" is much more visually noticeable than extra craft for existing ones.

- For buffs, as I previously wrote, a few more weapon-specific options. Everything else I feel is pretty well handled, but we're extremely limited in how much we can manipulate the host ship's individual weapon types. As in my example, we can only play with the "ENERGY" weapon cooldown, with no destinction between pulse, plasma, what have you. Completing the group and creating a set of modifiables for each existing weapon will give us a lot more options. Basically, a buff atomic to change damage, range, and cooldown for each weapon type (Autocannon, Missile, etc).

Reply #41 Top
Also what I wanted to ask, if it will be available to us to add more fighter/frigate/cruiser/capital ship types to the game as of 1.1? Wait.. isnt that a new entity and it won't be available until the engine will be [ hopefully ] rewritten?

Still it's sad about the entity types, but I BET You will do it when You see that the community has made of use what You are giving out to it. Don't let us down! [ Adding experience and abilities to fighters will have to wait :| ]
Reply #42 Top
Making non-fighters move like fighters, without all the drawbacks of the "Fighter" entity type. Yes with a lot of ships this is bad, but mods can inherently be balanced around fewer ships where this would not be a big issue. So in essense, having the option of making a current existing ship entity type have the property of fighter movement.

Yes, please! This alone would make me sooo happy! :)
Reply #43 Top
1.04 does not allow infinite effects, but 1.1 will.


*Queues evil laugh*

:D
Reply #44 Top
Good to see that most of these issues are being addressed, but I'd like to reiterate my request for a .mesh to text converter. I would think such a thing would not be terribly hard to engineer (though coding is not my field of experience by any means) and I know that, at least for me, it would be of great help as far as debugging any rigging issues that models have in a quicker, easier to edit fashion. It would also help to be able to manually check to see that a model has been exported properly into .mesh and fix any problems in that final form, as getting models to export correctly in all respects (bones, textures, smoothing groups, etc) has been a bit rough with the currently available official and 3rd party utilities.
Reply #45 Top
I am backing up Annatar with his statement.
I also would like to say that different planetary entity types would be useful, rather than just star or planet for everything.
Also being able to have a mesh and a particle effect work within the same particle file would be great, allowing for some really interesting looking planets and stars, as well as anomolies. Looking forward to that GUI.
And if the particle effects are easier to work with, as well as the entities, would be really useful. FouracesII and I have successfully created a Black Hole, but it took weeks to hammer out all the bugs and mindumps we were getting (since the game engine is so testy).
If the game engine could be a little more "forgiving", that would be a HUGE benefit. Like I said before, we could all live with less minidumps.
Glad to see that you are paying attention to us.
And "yay!" for those increased Capital ships, and I do hope you are talking about being able to build more than five kinds of ships.

DANMAN
Reply #46 Top
The engine isn't forgiving? Sure, the way it parses entity files is a little weird but a lot of the time the problem I have with it is it's too forgiving and plays perfectly when I mess something up, then dumps in the middle of something else.
Reply #47 Top
(O Sole Mio aka Walls Ice Cream advert)


Just one ship turret,
give it to me,

please change the game engine
using a hardpoint or entity.

The new-ly rendered scene..

with animated turrets, will be
a modders dream.




Just make it possible to attach a Gauss gun defence platform in object space to a mesh or I'll threaten you with more dire songs ;p 


Reply #48 Top
I think one topic that has not got the emphasis it deserves has been AI, unless we can do something about teaching and changing the AI then we are very limited in what we can successfully do (Singleplayer would almost certainly be a no-go for most of the major mods).

Though as no one has done so yet I shall link "The Modders Wishlist" thread, as that seemed to cover much of what Modders want and in a more concise manner

Thread Link
Reply #49 Top
I think the important word here is: patience

I develop persistent worlds for Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 (very complex servers, with custom content measured in GB, and hundreds of areas to explore, extremely complex scripting, and so on) and many of the developers there have many complaints - devs not paying attention, patches needing patching, the whole thing . . .

Perhaps I am old school since I recall playing "pong" when it came out at home, but the support games get now is far greater than in the past. I think the fact devs do anything is a great testament to our money, since after all, 40 bucks is a rather small amount of cash to spend, and then get more service after the fact - 40 bucks is one month's broadband service, or a nice dinner . . . how long can people at a game company work for us, at least bust ass, for that small amount?

The best bet for the community is to do what I have seen for Neverwinter Nights:
- Use this forum to make sure the devs know our needs, wants, and desires
- Spread work out between people and groups - no need to double up on things
- Make sure the Wiki is linked to the forum in obvious places, and updated with new info discovered as we go
- Don't "devolve" the forums ie, posts like "Why does this game suck" or "Will they ever fix this crappy game" - would you feel motivated if you woke up and read on your game's forums constant complaints?
- Set up a master DL for people's work to be compiled into (like 7 Deadly Sins)
- Have a bug thread / forum, specifically for developers to look at (make sure the devs specify one, etc)

Great example I can give is how much of the custom content on NWN2 overlapped, until a few people took the initiative to make a master DL (I handled music, being a music teacher). Here in the forums, I read one group is doing Star Trek, and then another the Borg - but, not together?? I don't know about all of you, but as much as I love modding games, I don't have unlimited time, and would like to be blasting some cap ships as well as editing .entity files.

I think if people stay organized, do not overlap work, and communicate with the devs in a constructive and motivating manner, this game will see its potential. Have patience.
Reply #50 Top
Dragonsbane777: to be perfectly frank here, it's not a question of patience at all. The game was promised to be "completely data-driven" with extremely flexible modding support as one of the game's main features from the beginning. If modders are running into hard limits at every turn that's unacceptable. If such support was never promised, or was more of a minor concern, you would be correct in posting that we should be thankful for what we're given: however, I think you'll agree that if you promise a feature it should be delivered on as fully as possible.

It's also difficult to be patient when even a small change to the game renders an entire mod inoperable. And by the time your patience is up - six months to a year, for example, everyone's lost interest in the game. It's not a mod team's job to maintain interest in a game: that's not fair.

So I don't like that argument much.

Which makes the post by psugar more than a little disappointing. But at this point it really doesn't matter. There's no time machine, and it's better to at least hear it now than later or never, which was sort of what this topic was intended to induce. I know I can live with most of the limits - I'm just dismayed because there's so much that could be done with seemingly trivial changes, whether they would have been made in the game's development or after release. :NOTSURE: