Civilization 5 Modding Dead.

[Ryan F. Mercer]

Such things don't require a plot. It's a matter of incentive. While the developers may be genuine in their approach, it also seems evident that the modding community is not considered a significant incentive. I personally think that's a mistake. The modding community has always had the potential of being the greatest asset.

Unfortunately, I don't think the developers are completely without guilt when it comes to the cynicism on this issue. Truth is, most of the real whiners have come and gone. Anyone still here, reading these threads, is a die hard that would love to love this game. So at this point, I think the complaints are pretty legitimate.

I don't mean to pick on the developers; maybe it's management's fault. {shrug}

 

[cool3a2]

Well, I have some doubts that it is only because of the broken tools... There were people like me that have tried to include the art manually by hacking the xmls. That's dirty, but if it solves the issue for a while, it would be okay. Still, no luck. Even if we've done something improperly, they could have helped us simply by telling us some details about the issues. Maybe we would have found an own way as a temporary solution. Don't think that this would have cost them much.
Also, I don't think that doing only one thing till it is ready like a stobborn donkey and then start with the next, is the wrong approach. They should have fixed the real serious things within 2 patches or so, then continue a little with the modding tools for one patch, then switch back to game fixing with the next couple of patches and so on. So, no mix within a single patch, but still making some progress in all directions. My point is still, that users will loose interest in civ5. We modders do as we can't even do the simple things, ordinary users do as they don't get even the simplest things modded. Think of a hungarian user for example. There is no Hungary by default, so he will have to play as someone else. How long will he play the game? So, if they continue with their politics, they will loose audience and if they will have finished fixing the game, few will care. At least, they should stop focusing DLCs for now as long as they can't get the basic things working. I assume they would get some time this ways. It would be kind if you could tell your contact about this and if they could at least give a statement about what they think how long it will take them roughly to get the basic things working. At the moment, I'm not even sure if they know about how unsatisfied we modders are about this and whether this will ever be addressed...

 

[LtChambers]

There should be a special forum badge for members who say "I won't play or stopped playing the game because it doesn't have my nation!"

I tend to agree with Psyringe that an increasing focus on DLC correlates strongly with a decreasing focus on moddability. Another good example is the Total War series. I think it seriously compromises the lifespan of games beyond the developer's expansions. Where would Valve be without Counterstrike, or DICE without Desert Combat?

Maybe this analysis is flawed in the context of the real business. Perhaps the majority of casual players never play large mods and it's mostly the hard-core fans that care about them. Plenty of developers have alienated their hard-core fans over the years and I can't recall an instance where it actually sank a company.

 

[cool3a2]

There should be a special forum badge for members who say "I won't play or stopped playing the game because it doesn't have my nation!"

I have the feeling that you missed the point. I didn't complain because Hungary isn't it, I complained because I still can't add it in an acceptable manor. Also, I guess your country is in, so you don't have that problem that the game gets broing soon because you can't identify yourself with the country you are playing. Would be different again if we'd have mods about Star Trek were the idea and motivation is totally different. But what shall I say?

 

[Gedemon]

what is "an acceptable manor" btw ? is a 3D leaderhead really mandatory for identification ?

 

[Psyringe]

Gedemon, I don't think that this particular venue of discussion is very useful. For some players, enjoyment of the game is totally irrelevant from the availability of their preferred country, for others it depends very much on it. With people who fall into the latter category, you won't change their preferences by questioning them.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether or not my home country is in the game, and I enjoy to play a different (randomly chosen) civ each game. Sticking to the same civ would be very boring for me. But I understand (and respect) that other people may feel exactly the opposite way.

 

[Valkrionn]

Actually, it's very useful.

Does representing a civ in an "acceptable manor" constitute something playable, with unique abilities? Or does it constitute something that LOOKS good?

IMO, it would be the first. Graphics are fluff.

 

[Gedemon]

Gedemon, I don't think that this particular venue of discussion is very useful. For some players, enjoyment of the game is totally irrelevant from the availability of their preferred country, for others it depends very much on it. With people who fall into the latter category, you won't change their preferences by questioning them.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether or not my home country is in the game, and I enjoy to play a different (randomly chosen) civ each game. Sticking to the same civ would be very boring for me. But I understand (and respect) that other people may feel exactly the opposite way.

Sorry, I didn't meant it that way.

I'm working on (yet another of course...) WW2 mod right now, and I can make new civilizations with new 3D units, new icons, new loading/selection screen, new text, new 2D leaderhead, new traits, etc... afaik the only thing we can't add is a 3D leaderhead or a new 3d terrain improvement/building (I'm listing that, but in fact specific building for vanilla civs don't even have a 3D presentation in cities...)

I totally understand that anyone want to have a civ to identify and play with, but then won't 2D LH could help to wait for the tools to be fixed ? (especially if your playing that civ as you won't see the 3D animations then)

 

[SamBC]

Well, there's other things you can't do for it, but they are quite fluffy as well... RoM voiceover, diplomacy dialogue audio...

 

[cool3a2]

what is "an acceptable manor" btw ? is a 3D leaderhead really mandatory for identification ?

Nope, I was thinking about adding new unqiue unit and building art at least for UU and UB which to my knowledge is still not possible without overwriting existing units and buildings. I mean, creating gr2 files wasn't hard, but I am not aware that bringing them to the game without overwriting existing stuff is possible. If they have fixed that meanwhile, well, they could have done more advertisement for it. Also, that would proof my point that if it take them too long to get basic things done, nowone will careanymore when they finally do it. I haven't done much more with civ5 then updating it and reading the patches changelogs. Wouldn't have noticed that anything basic in this area would have changed...

 

[markusbeutel]

I think part of the reason why Firaxis hasn't focused on fixing the modding tools and releasing the dll is because CIV IV still has a very robust modding community. To this day I still see new copies of CIV IV show up on shelves at local big-box stores and the mods currently available must play a huge role in it's continued success.

These mods for CIV IV alone are sure to pique people's interest and naturally lead them towards CIV V and all the DLC that comes with it. In that regard, it's in Firaxis's best interests to make sure the core gameplay of CIV V is the best it can be for these new consumers before focusing on the modding aspect of the spectrum.

 

[Gedemon]

Nope, I was thinking about adding new unqiue unit and building art at least for UU and UB which to my knowledge is still not possible without overwriting existing units and buildings.

Sorry, I don't understand. Adding a new unit without replacing one could be done almost since the beginning (not thanks to firaxis, but it's here), or do I miss something else ?

You'll have to merge the artdefines file if you use more than one mod adding new units, but I guess it's not the point here, is it ?

english is not my native langage, sorry if I misread something, I just want to clarify.

 

[cool3a2]

I suppose you got me right, still, all I ever heard so far, is, that it isn't possible. Even tried it by myself without any luck. The modding tools definately don't help, as well as that hacked tool someone provided. I tried it manually (somewhere at the beginning of this year, I think), but I can remember that there was a thread where people discussed which file should be moddified and talking about what files have been changed with the DLCs to find out what files they do alter. So I'm surprised that this should be so easily possible... Well, I tried it with a building as it seemed to be easier than units (no animation), not sure if there is a difference.

EDIT: I have taken a look at kaels guide and it looks that units can be added. The problem is that it seems buildings can not, although I haven't checked that currently. If I remember correctly, the issue when messing around with this last time, was, that artdefines for the buildings are hidden which is why everybody blamed it on firaxis that the whole thing is not possible and why they searched in the DLCs. The only building related defs around were those of the wonders. Units use animations which is why I consider them to be the second step only.

 

[danomite]

+1

After repeatedly trying to give Civ5 a chance, I've more or less given up on it. Back to Civ 4 and its wonderful mods.

 

[SamBC]

Most buildings have no 3D art; just wonders and a smattering of other buildings.

 

[Oohforf]

Excellent rebuttal. Have you considered politics as a career?

You already know it! ^.^ I don't think snarky replies are needed, though.

Anyways, seriously, give it a chance. It hasn't been that long. Time flies >.>.

Civ4 dll release date: April 13th, 2006

Yes, Civ 4 was released in October of 06, while Civ 5 in September, but I don't think it will be much longer until we see the DLL be released. This is just me, but I think it's only just the beginning of CiV modding.

 

[Amylion]

Hi,

just stumbled (again) over this thread, and wanted to rectify some misinformations / wrong assumptions.

• No Support for modders from Civ5 Dev Team (Each Patch has crippled modding more)

Exaggeration. Not true (see last patch).

• Extremely Limited LUA

Untenable exaggeration. Not true.

• No I/O (read/writing files) Access

That's good. A safety risk less. And there are ways to save!

• A couple modders suggested No I/O access was a good thing, for safety. If you can't trust modders, who can you trust?

...
No comment!

• No modifying SQL databases in game

Wrong. You can modify the SQL database in game, the question is if the game will get updated.

• Barely any useful events

???
There are plenty of useful events.

• No way to save data (It took 2 months before modders hacked together a solution)

Contradicting itself. Truth is: it can be done and it has been done.

• Poor Lua support in Modbuddy

Nonsense.

• Confusing XML littered with dead XML fields

What a problem! Really "confusing"! [sarcasm]

• Hardcoded Leaders, Resources, Techs

Wrong. All these can be modded through simple XML files.

• No Artwork support

Wrong.

• No Access to critical features, Like AI

Wrong.

 

[Ryan F. Mercer]

No way to save data (It took 2 months before modders hacked together a solution)

Contradicting itself. Truth is: it can be done and it has been done.

To be fair, it was harder than it should have been. But more importantly, who called it a "hack"? :\

 

[Spatzimaus]

But more importantly, who called it a "hack"?

Yeah, I'm on Whys' side on this one. It's not a "hack", it's an elegant work of art. A masterpiece of both form and function. Denigrating it with the "hack" label is uncalled for. And I'm not just saying that because I use it (or more accurately, the resource-creation logic it made possible) heavily in my own mod. (Okay, maybe that's PART of the reason I'm taking that side...)

That being said, it should have been front and center in the modding structure instead of an almost-afterthought that they removed in December after thinking that no one was using it. So I'm not giving the devs a pass on that one.

 

[Valkrionn]

It was removed because they thought it was rarely used, and had a replacement system nearly ready.

That said: Shouldn't have been removed till the replacement was fully realized.