Civ V Modding

@eireksten:
I fear that none of your "obvious solutions" would exactly increase the modability of ciV.

 

I never claimed they would. They don't decrease moddability either (except perhaps for the one where it's not allowed). In any case, they're better than the scenario where you need to have the exact correct set of DLC to be able to run one.

 

Do we even know that they're intending to release a string of for-pay-DLC after initial release?
And that any such DLC will actually change the core game (ie won't just be additional scenarios and mods)?

[Know != assume.]

This all seems like a lot of hyperventilating otherwise.

 

No, we don't But even if they do, that's not necessarily a problem either.

 

I think the problem is that in Civ IV, mods tend to be mutually exclusive, so most people aren't seeing how you can have "DLC" and "mods" active at the same time without the latter supporting the former.

However, in many "highly moddable" games, they are not mutually exclusive. Instead, it is up to the user to avoid conflicts. For myself, if I were designing Civ V to be "highly moddable," I'd categorize the changeables to make mods, well, more modular.

Example:

Import Scripts/Ruleset: (Rise of Mankind)
Import Civilizations: (Fall from Heaven II) (DLC pack 1, DLC pack 2)
Import Units: (Fall from Heaven II) (Rise of Mankind) (DLC pack 1, DLC pack 2)
Import Technology: (Rise of Mankind)
Import Tileset: (Fall from Heaven II)

This is a very basic structure and I'm sure I'll get some guy yelling about my hypothetical, "WHAT ABOUT THIS CASE, WHAT ABOUT THAT CASE" to which I'll respond "Then wait for the ****ing podcast or come up with your own ideas."

 

This is where we disagree, if you make it hard for modders - or outright deny them - access to make use of ANY content (that was previously available) then - yes, that is effectively a decrease in modability.

 

It is not a matter of whether you can have a mix of DLCs and mods installed at the same time. The question is whether you HAVE to have the ALL the same DLCs installed that a specific mod is using content from.

Why does the Ferengi rule "Let the buyer beware" spring to mind here?

 

Well, you don't even know that DLC isn't freely distributable through mods (which was one of my suggested solutions, btw, mods being free to use all content freely).

This still doesn't decrease moddability of the game. It adds a requirement to be running the mod. But as stated, you don't know that this will be the case.

In any case, if they didn't release any DLC at all, you wouldn't be able to use it in mods either. I don't see that increasing moddability over these suggestions.

 

We already know that the first DLC (being renamed as "DE") will be sold.
Experience tells us that companies want to protect their revenues. This in turn leads to the assumption that said DLC cannot legally spread by modifications.

So, until somebody from 2K comes back informing us that there wouldn't be any objections to freely spread the DE content, we will have to consider it as forbidden.

As stated earlier already, there is a technical component and a legal component of the meaning of "moddability".
Technically it may indeed be easy (assumung the "unprecedented modding abilities" not only to be commercial slang) to re-skin Nebuchadnezar.
From a legal point of view, I am still missing the indication that this in combination with spreading such a re-skin would be allowed.

Therefore, there is a limitation of modding capabilities to be expected.

 

Indeed, but then that is also why I write "if".

And having to meet any such hardcoded requirements (if that is indeed how DLC will work) has never been the case before with any officially added Civ content (from a technical perspective) - and it would thus represent a reduction in modability for anyone wanting to make use of that content.

If they are going to lock the content of the DLCs then personally then I'd rather that they didn't make use of DLCs at all - and stuck with Expansion pack system instead.

 

Why would we need to spread the extra civ through mods? An extra civ is (in terms of data) relatively little information: it is an instance of a class. We know it has "traits", preferred victory, (presumably) a UU, and a UB. O, and the art/leaderhead. Unless you are writing a mod that specifically needs a given civ as it has been officially released, you can make changes to the class and it will work regardless of how many civs the end user has or does not have. If your mod needs the specific civ, then only the people who already have the civ will be able to use the mod.

The effect on moddability of the one type of DE that we have seen, is negligible.

 

It's going to cause headaches at least. I foresee many irritated people downloading such mods not understanding why they get a CTD. There's no other way to restrict Babylon without hardcoding it in the exe; as such, total conversion mods like Star Trek and FFH won't be possible (CTD when the game tries to look for Babylon and doesn't find it).

 

Why would it need to look for it? that is what "if" statements are for.

 

In theory if they check for the case where it doesn't exist it should be fine... but I do remember that CTDs are the reason that you never, ever, hardcode an XML entry in the SDK.

 

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. YES, if a mod uses DLC, you HAVE to have it. If a mod uses an expansion pack, you HAVE to have it. This has always been the same with anything. "Dependencies." Why is this even a question? Is your complaint "Modders can't hand out paid DLC for free in the form of mods"?

Because you're being argumentative on a message board for no apparent reason, asking questions that have already been answered as well as they're going to get by other users. Elizabeth said they're going to do a modding podcast, she's not going to magic up some answers for you earlier because you don't want to wait.

 

@Vordrax:
You are clearly not understanding what I am talking about. I already explained the problem as clear as possible in my post #28 in this thread.

 

Are you kidding? I've played fantastic Oblivion mods. There are countless!


On topic: I think the problem with the nonlinear growth of combinations will not be such a great problem in reality. How is it with Civ4 and other games (e.g. Oblivion)? The modding becomes serious and great more than one year after the game comes out and typically when the game is a bit older and all addons are available for discount, the whole modding community just works with all possible add-ons (or DLC for that matter). There will most probably expansion packs bundling DLCs of a certain period and these will be fair in price (I hope).

I believe that Firaxis and the publishers are well aware that CIV is a special series living from a fanatic fan base that plays the game for years and is extremely open to modding in general. It is not comparable to a 1st person shooter. They ignore that fact, CiV5 will be a flop!

 

I'm not terribly familiar with Civ4 modding, but everything I know about programming says that the addition of a civ shouldn't change/break anything. I don't see why any mod would *need* Babylon for it to operate, and I don't see why any mod would break if Babylon was there. In a properly modular system, it shouldn't matter what civs - or even how many - I have installed when I apply another mod.

That being his point.

 

I should read more carefully...

 

It looks like you're thinking of mods as only add-a-whater type mods. Those are the only mods that benefit from modular loading. With other, more extensive, mods, modular loading is an inferior way to create them. Think of RFC, or ROM.