Civilization 5 Modding Dead.

[Tssha]

So...they respond to the criticism that you can't add-on mods one by one with a new XML architecture designed around that...and you say it's all because they want to sell you the DLC?

Let's face it, this new architecture is not so suited to big, total conversion mods as much as the smaller, add a feature, add a unit, add a civ mods. Note the plural there, mods. Having them all loadable with just a few clicks, that's a great feature right there.

This system isn't fully done yet, and needs some serious fixing. If Firaxis never fixes it, we can lambaste them THEN. Until then, and until the DLL is released, we're just gonna have to fend for ourselves for a bit.

So again, ailing, but not dead yet.

 

[SamBC]

An awful lot more is possible than adding a civ. Big behaviour changes have the problem that the AI won't understand them, but otherwise, as long as you tune the flavour values, it's perfectly possible. UI mods are also very doable, purely through XML and Lua.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Big behaviour changes have the problem that the AI won't understand them

More specifically, as long as you keep in mind what the AI CAN understand when creating a mod, then it works just fine. While this unfortunately limits what you can do, it's not nearly as limiting as you might think at first glance, because:

1> Many changes involve neutralizing the human players' advantage by encouraging the strategies that the AI already follows.
The best example of this is ICS; back in December-ish, there were many balance mods that involved making changes to trade routes, specialist slots, happiness, city spacing, etc., all designed to neuter the sprawl strategy and encourage vertical development of a smaller number of cities... exactly like the AI was designed for. So the AI's behavior needed no adjustment to account for these changes, because the changes were designed to work within the AI's ideal strategy to begin with.

2> There are many types of effects that simply shouldn't change how the AI reacts in the first place.
For instance, let's say you add an "Intelligence Agency" National Wonder that gives a player a small chance of stealing non-Disabled techs that other players know, with the chance depending on what fraction of the other civs have that tech. (In my own mod, the KGB, Planetary Datalinks, and Nethack Terminus all do this.) While the math behind it can be complex, the effect is transparent to the AI; he builds the wonder because it has a high science flavor value, and benefits from the effect with no further input.

Or consider nuke interception. The <NukeInterception> stub in the Projects file and the ChangeNukeInterception Lua function keep track of each civ's interception rate... and then do nothing with it. They don't actually intercept any nukes, so you have to create a Lua event to accomplish this. The thing is, while this can be a significant balance change, it won't change the AI's behavior; if he has nukes, he'll still use them as soon as possible in a war, despite the fact that fewer nukes will now get through. But this SHOULDN'T change; he gains nothing from saving the nukes for later, so the AI needs no adjustment.

 

[deanej]

An awful lot more is possible than adding a civ. Big behaviour changes have the problem that the AI won't understand them, but otherwise, as long as you tune the flavour values, it's perfectly possible. UI mods are also very doable, purely through XML and Lua.

That counts as medium sized mods, and my point holds. Yes, you can change the falvors, which makes the AI simply more likely to stumble into your concept than actually understand it. Not polished at all.

By "add-a-civ" type mods I mean any time that adds new assets (such as units, buildings, tech) mostly through XML. Not just civs, but they come to mind and are the poster child for this type of mod. By large mods I mean stuff like FFH.

 

[Valkrionn]

Which is all waiting on DLL access, or rather: All the modders willing to attempt such a thing are waiting on DLL access.

 

[deanej]

I'm pretty sure deleting some assets still causes a CTD so DLL access won't save them. At the very least it will have a LOT more grunt work due to the requirement to explicitly delete access rather than having the game load the mod's version of a file and ignore the game's. Firaxis really needs to add an option for a mod to load the same way civ4 mods do. There's also the inability to add some new art assets (a Nexus problem).

 

[Valkrionn]

That much I agree on.

 

[primordial stew]

One of the problems seems to be that people want to make the sort of big, deep mods that they could with source modding in CivIV, and they're waiting (or giving up waiting) for the source.

Indeed. I think the disappointment comes from having a very moddable expansion in BtS, and now going back to the very very primitive civV Really, civIII was the same way. PTW pretty much sucked, but Conquests was finally good enough. And the fond BtS is after patching. Remember when that thing came out? Espionage was a joke, spies were constantly meddling! Here is the new feature, and yes we way overdid it, but we'll patch it later, just get it out the door... *shove*

So now we're at civV, and it's back to being not very exciting. Cities are way overpowered (ever have the AI found a city, rush walls, castle, military base all in the same turn? just like that, a super fortress!), and there's no revolutions! Without revolutions there is no check on wanton aggression, the aggressive just keep expanding. The barbs won't even attack cities except at the highest difficulty levels where the AI bonuses are so high you cannot win.

Still, I do like the multi-core support, esp with 4 cores the game is quite reasonable. I also like 1 UPT, and if they ever get around to adding per unit hit points, the game will magically take off. If we can merge 2 10pt units into a single 20pt unit (eg infanterie + panzer = panzer grenadier corp, armor + armor = armored corps, legion + legion = consular army, etc...) it will reduce the clutter and the game will be playable. Yes, this is just civ3 armies, and it worked very well there. And then they dropped it It's nice that there is a global variable for hit points, but I don't want the bomber/arty/AAA/ship to have as many hit points as the panzer/infanterie division does. How much time would it take to add this, like 10 minutes? If we had the DLL I'd do it myself!

 

[Zyxpsilon]

and now going back to the very very primitive civV Really, civIII was the same way.

B.S.

What's primitive on CFC is that *SOME* people would stop at nothing to rant about every civilization iterations even if they don't have the slightest idea what this gameplay represents in both quality or personal preferences for the ruleset as offered.

Modding it has never been *this* easy for anyone knowledgeable enough.

Python couldn't deliver a compiled executable, LUA does.
And for any DDS files, i simply can't match a PCX format solid enough to compress stackspace in allocated dispatching by recent video-cards.

Both these resources are addressable in 64 bits already as well & what quad-cores can't handle yet, the current engine & Civ5 code mechanics supports **ahead** of its time.

Now, if you have an argument to make - sustain it with facts other than blaming AI algorithms. Because that *TOO* isn't (and never will be) within DLL source.
Fiddle with xml flavors if you must.

The only primitive factor here is that ranters' interpretation is no match for truth.
Designed to perform.

 

[Valkrionn]

Now, if you have an argument to make - sustain it with facts other than blaming AI algorithms. Because that *TOO* isn't (and never will be) within DLL source.
Fiddle with xml flavors if you must.

The only primitive factor here is that ranters' interpretation is no match for truth.
Designed to perform.

What? AI can and will be within the source. Just as in Civ4.

 

[ambrox62]

By large mods I mean stuff like FFH.

Just to share the knowledge to whoever was unaware, that large size mods must be hosted elsewhere from gamespy, making useless the in-game DL facility

 

[Afforess]

B.S.

What's primitive on CFC is that *SOME* people would stop at nothing to rant about every civilization iterations even if they don't have the slightest idea what this gameplay represents in both quality or personal preferences for the ruleset as offered.

Stay on topic.

Modding it has never been *this* easy for anyone knowledgeable enough.

Really? Interesting. Teach me how to add new building artwork then. Oh, wait.

Python couldn't deliver a compiled executable, LUA does.

It is not the language that matters, but what the DLL gives access to. There are very few useful events that Lua can listen to, maybe 10 in all. Compare that to the nearly 100 in Civ4.

Now, if you have an argument to make - sustain it with facts

Right back at you.

Because that *TOO* isn't (and never will be) within DLL source.

If that is true, then Civ5 modding is not only dead, but also buried.

 

[SamBC]

It is not the language that matters, but what the DLL gives access to. There are very few useful events that Lua can listen to, maybe 10 in all. Compare that to the nearly 100 in Civ4.

GameEvents looks like improving that, but we really need a list of them. All of the GameEvents that we do know about seem obviously potentially useful. However, where there's seemingly no way to find out about other events, they may as well not be there.

They also really need to sort out the graphics importing. Can any 3D graphics be imported with just the tools as supplied, yet?

 

[Zyxpsilon]

If that is true, then Civ5 modding is not only dead, but also buried.

Let go of the past - is all i'm gonna stress over.
2K would likely enjoy more DLC pipelining than trusting **some** Modders into screwing up their executable(s).
Can you seriously claim verification of MOD contents is possible without installing first?

I'll give you this though... documented evidence of specific assets is *still* rare.
Model (as in gameplay & ruleset) & resources changed from civ4 or any previous versions (to which i was reacting in that context, btw), nevertheless.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Can any 3D graphics be imported with just the tools as supplied, yet?

Nope.
Want the proper skills or a user-friendly SDK for amateurs as well?

 

[Zyxpsilon]

What? AI can and will be within the source. Just as in Civ4.

I'm being misread & misunderstood here...

Unquoted and written exactly as it was -- OTHER than blaming AI algorithms.

Having the DLL source *would* not change the fact that xml accessing provides an indirect way to alter behavior *and* context of any AIs.

 

[SamBC]

Nope.
Want the proper skills or a user-friendly SDK for amateurs as well?

I'm happy with people needing the proper 3D modelling tools and the skills to use them - it should just be possible to actually get the assets such people produce into the game. It should also be possible to add the XML references to such assets in modular fashion... that's one of the more mental things, seeing as the overall modding architecture is angled fairly heavily towards modularity.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

that's one of the more mental things, seeing as the overall modding architecture is angled fairly heavily towards modularity.

Which is another way of stating what i mentioned earlier with;

Modding it has never been *this* easy for anyone knowledgeable enough.

 

[Valkrionn]

I'm being misread & misunderstood here...

Unquoted and written exactly as it was -- OTHER than blaming AI algorithms.

Having the DLL source *would* not change the fact that xml accessing provides an indirect way to alter behavior *and* context of any AIs.

Ah, in that case I'd agree with you.

The flavors are actually quite powerful.

Which is another way of stating what i mentioned earlier with;

Not quite; He's saying that the rest is highly modular, but art is not. While it should be.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Not quite; He's saying that the rest is highly modular, but art is not. While it should be.

Considering how complex "Art" for this game is (Refer to Z-UI acrobatics for a proof), i also agree.
But, we shouldn't forget how Nexus proved to be partially impotent in certain features. I must refer again to the summer layoffs at Firaxis for this lack of developed assets in due time.
Months worth of patching is actually putting gameplay in focus and it wouldn't take that much for them to carry through with *some* SDK enhancements.
When i state risk of MOD conflicts remains a factor, i'm serious; the current "activation" mode is messy, fails at coordinated cache handlings, picks up VFS on undetermined sharing, and what else.

Patience is key -- i still think the headstart (from the community) we've been experiencing since release has helped devs to solve major issues.

I guess, we have an estimated 75% productivity efficiency, everyone wants 100% - today or from the damn past.
Absolutely normal.
What i hate though is the destructive ranters which always lay blame on even continual progress towards a stable game.
Loyalty (or mood swings) isn't coded. It's packaged within ModBuddy and let the chips fall where they may.