Dennis Shirk confirms DLL is on its way

[Panda_Power]

My worry, then, is that if they've been spending all of their time on the DLL instead of fixing those many other problems, that maybe they're under the impression that it's what we modders really wanted all along. That'd mean that all of those other problems might not even be on their radar... and if these are all things we CAN'T fix with the DLL, then we have to wait even longer for Firaxis to get around to them.

Dear Firaxis,

Please listen to these people and help each other to do everything right. Please give them what they need to be able to create something wonderful.

 

[cephalo]

Note to Firaxis:

Make sure the DLL is compilable in Express! Express is not a full product, there are certain MS technologies that will not compile! Like MFC for example. Make sure to test it in Express!

 

[deanej]

In all likelihood we won't be able to compile directly anyways. Remember the civ4 DLL? I'm guessing that the civ5 DLL was made is VS 2005, or maybe even 2003 (did Firaxis ever upgrade?).

 

[mjs0]

In all likelihood we won't be able to compile directly anyways. Remember the civ4 DLL? I'm guessing that the civ5 DLL was made is VS 2005, or maybe even 2003 (did Firaxis ever upgrade?).

I asked this question last year and got the answer below...

I just asked, and Jon said you'll need 2008. It's probable that 2010 will work but it has not been tested.

 

[deanej]

You sure hell didn't freeze over?

Oh wait. It freezes every year.

 

[Sneaks]

Might be time to try this again

 

[Uncle Anton]

Valkrionn; Counter question: What does it matter?

Realistically, an expansion or some large content-pack DLC would revive enough interest in the game to propel fresh modders into the scene. Many civ4 modders have moved on, or remained with civ4... But that does not, in any way, mean that civ5 modding is dead. Rather, it simply means it is left for fresh blood. For better or worse.

With all due respect, I think it matters a great deal.

The current issue with Modding, as I understand it, is not that the current playable content is insufficient in scope (regardless of whether it is obtained via DLC) - the issue is that wide ranging in-depth game mechanic changes cannot be made because of the limits of what can be done without changing the Source; meaning that boneheaded design decisions cannot be rectified, improvements to the game's core mechanics cannot be easily made etc.

The later the Source is released the greater the chances that existing mod talent would simply give up and move on. Now, I agree with you that fresh mod talent is a good thing, but I would argue that this will be available regardless (as you point out) since new DLC is released and the game is well within it's lifecycle. However, why sacrifice old talent simply out of a stubborn prideful OMGZ-CIV-vs-CiV juvenile refusal to acknowledge that an existing (hopefully ongoing) community might be able to fix and improve things that the developers didn't/ran out of time to/weren't able to?

It's a legitimate concern, and a legitimate question to ask and discuss. There is no requirement for you to contribute to such a discussion if you don't feel so inclined.

 

[Valkrionn]

With all due respect, I think it matters a great deal.

The current issue with Modding, as I understand it, is not that the current playable content is insufficient in scope (regardless of whether it is obtained via DLC) - the issue is that wide ranging in-depth game mechanic changes cannot be made because of the limits of what can be done without changing the Source; meaning that boneheaded design decisions cannot be rectified, improvements to the game's core mechanics cannot be easily made etc.

The later the Source is released the greater the chances that existing mod talent would simply give up and move on. Now, I agree with you that fresh mod talent is a good thing, but I would argue that this will be available regardless (as you point out) since new DLC is released and the game is well within it's lifecycle. However, why sacrifice old talent simply out of a stubborn prideful OMGZ-CIV-vs-CiV juvenile refusal to acknowledge that an existing (hopefully ongoing) community might be able to fix and improve things that the developers didn't/ran out of time to/weren't able to?

It's a legitimate concern, and a legitimate question to ask and discuss. There is no requirement for you to contribute to such a discussion if you don't feel so inclined.

Part of what you said seems unrelated to my post... Mainly, your entire first paragraph. I'm not going to discuss that aspect (primarily because I agree with what you said; I'm waiting for the source just like everyone else).

My comment was aimed primarily at the idea that there will be a dearth of available modders, to such an extent that releasing the DLL would be pointless. This is fallacy; There will always be new modders. And this is not necessarily a bad thing, as fresh minds mean fresh ideas.

Yes, it is a legitimate concern that several of the well-known Civ4 modders may not return. But it is NOT a legitimate concern that this means modding is dead. This is the point I was wanting to make.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

The later the Source is released the greater the chances that existing mod talent would simply give up and move on.

True Modders never give up on anything and as soon as someone loses "patience" there's another waiting to pick up the slack.
DLL will have to be *integrated* within the current or additional DSK features -- components, functions (etc) rely on compiler assets.
Most of us will move along just fine. Doesn't matter when or how.

 

[Spatzimaus]

True Modders never give up on anything and as soon as someone loses "patience" there's another waiting to pick up the slack.

True, but there's a learning curve involved. I spent this last weekend trying to translate some Civ4-made unit models over to Civ5, and doing so involved learning a lot of the intricacies of Blender that the more experienced Civ4 modders would have long since figured out. If the only Civ5 modders are people who are new to the process, the quality of the resulting mods IS going to suffer a bit.

There's also a "name recognition" factor. Look at how many times people have asked if/when a Civ5 version of FfH will be out. While originality is a good thing, it makes it harder for a prospective user of mods to find something they know will be worth trying out.

Which brings me to my main issue with this whole process, that I've alluded to before: Civ5 modding has many major problems that the DLL simply won't resolve. While it's nice that we'll get the DLL, it's not going to change mods from their current state into something worth using for the average player.

For instance, consider the Mod Browser. Thanks to the last few patches, the majority of things on there simply won't work with the current game engine. In addition, some people have uploaded nonfunctional mods, sometimes because they thought the upload process was required to play their own mods. Before the modding environment can be considered user-friendly, we need a way to flag nonfunctional mods on the Browser, so that new Civ5 players who start downloading everything that sounds cool don't hit a wall when nothing works and give up on ever using mods.
Another Mod Browser problem? Linked files. My own mod, for instance, has two actual mods and a set of custom maps. While each mod has been designed to be used separately, they're really intended to go together, and the maps NEED one of the mods. But how can we make that clear on the Mod Browser?
(This is why CivFanatics' file hosting is so useful.)

 

[Valkrionn]

I wholly agree that there needs to be a way to differentiate "crap" mods from good ones. By that, I mean both broken and wholly unnecessary (IE, mods that either do nothing or are the typical "I made warriors have 999 str lolol" mods).

Linking mods will be possible once associations are working.

 

[Spatzimaus]

IBy that, I mean both broken and wholly unnecessary (IE, mods that either do nothing or are the typical "I made warriors have 999 str lolol" mods).

There are a lot of different categories you can make for this. For instance, back when the game first came out, there were quite a few trivial "remove America from the list of possible civilizations"-type mods out there. While those might still be useful mods to have around, they shouldn't be lumped in together with the big content mods.

Frankly, I sort of like how CivFanatics has done it here, with the Modpacks/Mod Components split, but then there's the "Projects" forum which currently only has Thalassicus' mods in it. Now personally I think most of the mods with 1000-post threads (City-state diplomacy, CtP, NiGHTS, the Economy mod, maybe mine) should be moved to their own Thalassicus-style directories in the Projects area so that comments don't all get mixed in together. When you start getting to 500+ posts, this sort of thing becomes necessary, although that number is completely arbitrary; you could easily drop it to 200+ and add BMF, R.E.D., and Hulfgar's as well. (Of course, take it too low and there'd be no one left in the Modpacks area.)

Point is, if the Mod Browser had a similar sort of separation, then it'd be easy to create projects that consist of multiple mods designed to work together, without getting lost in the tons of minor mods on the browser. Possibly make it user-related; "major" mods would get moved upward to a special category if enough people flagged it so, while "obsolete" mods would be moved downward through a similar mechanism. But that invites all sorts of abuses, so it'd take more work.

 

[Valkrionn]

There are a lot of different categories you can make for this. For instance, back when the game first came out, there were quite a few trivial "remove America from the list of possible civilizations"-type mods out there. While those might still be useful mods to have around, they shouldn't be lumped in together with the big content mods.

Exactly. It sounds elitist as all hell, but there is a clear difference.

And there is a flood of mostly useless mods preventing the useful ones from being found. Regardless of their size.

Frankly, I sort of like how CivFanatics has done it here, with the Modpacks/Mod Components split, but then there's the "Projects" forum which currently only has Thalassicus' mods in it. Now personally I think most of the mods with 1000-post threads (City-state diplomacy, CtP, NiGHTS, the Economy mod, maybe mine) should be moved to their own Thalassicus-style directories in the Projects area so that comments don't all get mixed in together. When you start getting to 500+ posts, this sort of thing becomes necessary, although that number is completely arbitrary; you could easily drop it to 200+ and add BMF, R.E.D., and Hulfgar's as well. (Of course, take it too low and there'd be no one left in the Modpacks area.)

I do as well. Though, you're incorrect on one thing; That forum has more than Thal's mods. There is at least one team forum there, for Eden (no, the public can't see it, but I assure you it's there ), that predates Thal's forum.

Point is, if the Mod Browser had a similar sort of separation, then it'd be easy to create projects that consist of multiple mods designed to work together, without getting lost in the tons of minor mods on the browser. Possibly make it user-related; "major" mods would get moved upward to a special category if enough people flagged it so, while "obsolete" mods would be moved downward through a similar mechanism. But that invites all sorts of abuses, so it'd take more work.

I agree. I've actually outlined a system before, largely inspired by what Minecraft was planning to do.

Namely, have tiers for modders. Public, with the basic hosting on the browser. Just as it is now. Then have "Trusted" or "Gold" or whatever you wish to call it; have this multiple prereqs. Payment, prior mods, etc.

Why payment? Simple: Firaxis (or someone hired by them) will go through, inspect your mods, ensure they are in working order and non-malicious, and give them a stamp of approval. Certified safe. Makes the whole thing far more likely to attract the average player.

Slap on a "Spam or Malicious content will result in a revoked membership, without refund" and it might be enough as is to prevent abuse.


A more developed community feedback system would be nice as well.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Exactly. It sounds elitist as all hell, but there is a clear difference.

I wouldn't even say "elitist". There's a fundamental difference between small XML-only GameData or Lua-only UI mods, larger ones that mix XML, Lua, and art assets, and huge FfH-style total conversions that replace the entirety of the database. If nothing else, this sort of categorization would be useful simply to know how likely things are to conflict with each other. Small XML mods almost never conflict with anything, mid-sized things will have many conflicts but most are workable, and the big FfH-type things are basically standalone games.

Though, you're incorrect on one thing; That forum has more than Thal's mods. There is at least one team forum there, for Eden (no, the public can't see it, but I assure you it's there ), that predates Thal's forum.

Maybe so, but without being able to see those other forums, a user of these boards gains no benefit from the distinction. The point I was trying to make, and that others have said before me, is that the most active large-scale mods should be moved into separate forums if only to keep the threads from clogging up; the Projects area is just the most obvious choice. Being able to have separate threads for Policies, Units, Wonders, etc. helps tremendously.

Then have "Trusted" or "Gold" or whatever you wish to call it; have this multiple prereqs. Payment, prior mods, etc.

Payment is obviously a major problem. Given that Firaxis' employees are paid more per hour than I am, and given how many hours it'd take them to go through my mod to certify it as "safe", there's no possible way the price for that service could ever be reasonable at market prices. So Firaxis would have to basically subsidize, charging a token amount just to keep the riffraff away and paying the rest out of their own pockets as an advertising expense. Oh, and updates: every time I come out with a new version, would they have to recertify that before it becomes available for others to download? I've updated my mod about 35 times since last October... or would it be that once my mod is certified once, I'm now a "Trusted" modder and can update as often as I feel like?

Probably still a good deal for them, but that brings us to the second problem: why would I bother? I mean think about it. I've got a mod here, on CivFanatics, where it's hosted for free and I can update it whenever I feel like it without major headaches. While I like the idea of other people playing my mod, I'm not going to pay a huge amount to get the "official" stamp. Heck, the main reason I made my mod in the first place was so that I would enjoy the game, myself; the feedback from other people playing just makes my mod that much better when I do play. I'm sure I'd get more people playing it if it were on the Mod Browser, but I'd get even less useful feedback that way.

Basically, I just see them going the DLC route instead. Ask the people who made the most popular mods what five XML stubs, Lua functions, or art assets they'd each like to see added, make those be unique to those mods (so that the version they sell is markedly better than the one you can download for free), and release a "Developer's Choice" DLC pack. Of course, once we have the DLL this might not be possible...

 

[The_J]

Frankly, I sort of like how CivFanatics has done it here, with the Modpacks/Mod Components split, but then there's the "Projects" forum which currently only has Thalassicus' mods in it. Now personally I think most of the mods with 1000-post threads (City-state diplomacy, CtP, NiGHTS, the Economy mod, maybe mine) should be moved to their own Thalassicus-style directories in the Projects area so that comments don't all get mixed in together. When you start getting to 500+ posts, this sort of thing becomes necessary, although that number is completely arbitrary; you could easily drop it to 200+ and add BMF, R.E.D., and Hulfgar's as well. (Of course, take it too low and there'd be no one left in the Modpacks area.)

If no-one asks...

Point is, if the Mod Browser had a similar sort of separation, then it'd be easy to create projects that consist of multiple mods designed to work together, without getting lost in the tons of minor mods on the browser. Possibly make it user-related; "major" mods would get moved upward to a special category if enough people flagged it so, while "obsolete" mods would be moved downward through a similar mechanism. But that invites all sorts of abuses, so it'd take more work.

Can't see what sort of abuse might be there.


They should add with the easiest thing: Version control (...er...not like subversion, etc). Flag every upload with the patch version, have an "obsolete mods" categorie to which every mod gets moved if it isn't updated after the patch or the modder flags it as compatible.

I hope i haven't lost that much track and such a thing does not exist yet .

I agree. I've actually outlined a system before, largely inspired by what Minecraft was planning to do.

Namely, have tiers for modders. Public, with the basic hosting on the browser. Just as it is now. Then have "Trusted" or "Gold" or whatever you wish to call it; have this multiple prereqs. Payment, prior mods, etc.

Why payment? Simple: Firaxis (or someone hired by them) will go through, inspect your mods, ensure they are in working order and non-malicious, and give them a stamp of approval. Certified safe. Makes the whole thing far more likely to attract the average player.

Slap on a "Spam or Malicious content will result in a revoked membership, without refund" and it might be enough as is to prevent abuse.

That's a) a hell lot of work b) might just not be possible with the current traffic c) and did you maybe read the job offer last year for the community manager ?
That's what Greg should be doing, but i guess they underestimated the workload.

 

[Spatzimaus]

If no-one asks...

Well, it's not exactly a negligible amount of work, and it really needs to be coordinated with the mod's creator so that he has time to set up the various threads. And ideally, the creators of those mods would have some additional administrative privileges in their own subfora, for deleting old posts and such, although I don't know if this board's program can handle that.

Can't see what sort of abuse might be there.

If the status of a mod is based purely on user votes, then you open the door to:
> People who vote down mods they've never played, purely to grief people.
> People who vote more than once, especially if it's to vote their own mod up into that "preferred" category.
That's just a start. The point is that it's nice to have a user feedback system (which they do now), but at best it should be something used purely as an advisory guide for an actual Firaxis employee. (If a mod gets 1000 "up" votes, then someone takes a look at it to decide whether it deserves the "preferred" label, and if it gets a certain number of down votes they might stick an "obsolete" sticker on it.)

They should add with the easiest thing: Version control (...er...not like subversion, etc). Flag every upload with the patch version, have an "obsolete mods" categorie to which every mod gets moved if it isn't updated after the patch or the modder flags it as compatible.

I wasn't just referring to patch versions, although yes, that's an essential part of the system. If your mod was uploaded even one patch ago, there should be a big WARNING label attached to it no matter what was actually changed internally. If it's been more than six months since the last upload, maybe upgrade the label to ABANDONED; they might still work, but don't count on it.

What I was actually referring to was a finer version control scheme than that. Like I said, I've gone through something like 35 versions of my mod since its creation; while I'm now averaging one version every 2 weeks, towards the beginning it was more like 2-3 days per. All 35 of these were still "v1" officially. So do you:
A> Certify the mod once, put its creator as "trusted", and hope that he doesn't abuse this with later updates to the mod?
or
B> Require each update to be checked by an employee, requiring far more work?

 

[Valkrionn]

I wouldn't even say "elitist". There's a fundamental difference between small XML-only GameData or Lua-only UI mods, larger ones that mix XML, Lua, and art assets, and huge FfH-style total conversions that replace the entirety of the database. If nothing else, this sort of categorization would be useful simply to know how likely things are to conflict with each other. Small XML mods almost never conflict with anything, mid-sized things will have many conflicts but most are workable, and the big FfH-type things are basically standalone games.

Again, I agree.

Maybe so, but without being able to see those other forums, a user of these boards gains no benefit from the distinction. The point I was trying to make, and that others have said before me, is that the most active large-scale mods should be moved into separate forums if only to keep the threads from clogging up; the Projects area is just the most obvious choice. Being able to have separate threads for Policies, Units, Wonders, etc. helps tremendously.

In my experience, it's generally pretty easy to get a forum, if you have the traffic for it.

You just have to, you know, ask.

Payment is obviously a major problem. Given that Firaxis' employees are paid more per hour than I am, and given how many hours it'd take them to go through my mod to certify it as "safe", there's no possible way the price for that service could ever be reasonable at market prices. So Firaxis would have to basically subsidize, charging a token amount just to keep the riffraff away and paying the rest out of their own pockets as an advertising expense. Oh, and updates: every time I come out with a new version, would they have to recertify that before it becomes available for others to download? I've updated my mod about 35 times since last October... or would it be that once my mod is certified once, I'm now a "Trusted" modder and can update as often as I feel like?

Probably still a good deal for them, but that brings us to the second problem: why would I bother? I mean think about it. I've got a mod here, on CivFanatics, where it's hosted for free and I can update it whenever I feel like it without major headaches. While I like the idea of other people playing my mod, I'm not going to pay a huge amount to get the "official" stamp. Heck, the main reason I made my mod in the first place was so that I would enjoy the game, myself; the feedback from other people playing just makes my mod that much better when I do play. I'm sure I'd get more people playing it if it were on the Mod Browser, but I'd get even less useful feedback that way.

Basically, I just see them going the DLC route instead. Ask the people who made the most popular mods what five XML stubs, Lua functions, or art assets they'd each like to see added, make those be unique to those mods (so that the version they sell is markedly better than the one you can download for free), and release a "Developer's Choice" DLC pack. Of course, once we have the DLL this might not be possible...

Which is why it should be farmed out to someone not payed much (if at all; They'd probably find people willing to do it within the Franky group. Hell, I'd be willing to check a few a week.)

The whole point would be that each upload is certified, and can be trusted by the users. The only real basis for the price (beyond increased operating budget) is simply to have a real entry-bar in place, such that only serious modders use it.


A few basic things the modbrowser needs:

1. Working "Website" link.
2. Screenshot capabilities.
3. Required version (able to reference either core releases, such that out of date mods are easily distinguished, or other mods)
4. "Update Available" button
5. Ability to rate down, as well as up.
6. Ability to flag as out of date/obsolete/not working.
   • At a minimum, require a gamespy id for this. The typical mod downloader will not have one; while still open to some abuse, this at least restricts it to people who have some idea what they're doing.
7. User-defined categories
   • Probably won't happen, but it would be nice.
   • Possible alternative: Say you have a mod like FfH. On it's page, have a "Find all mods referencing Fall from Heaven version X" button. Pulls up any and all mods listing FfH as a requirement; IE, any and all modmods.

If no-one asks...

Right.

I think I've asked for... A forum, then for the forum to be moved/renamed/addition of a team forum (IIRC, potentially one of the most nested forums on the site, given it's a modmod forum ), then creation of a NEW team forum for Eden.

So long as you have the traffic, a forum isn't hard to justify.

That's a) a hell lot of work b) might just not be possible with the current traffic c) and did you maybe read the job offer last year for the community manager ?
That's what Greg should be doing, but i guess they underestimated the workload.

• True.
• Also true.
• Again, true.

 

[The_J]

Edit: Val is crossposting .

Well, it's not exactly a negligible amount of work, and it really needs to be coordinated with the mod's creator so that he has time to set up the various threads. And ideally, the creators of those mods would have some additional administrative privileges in their own subfora, for deleting old posts and such, although I don't know if this board's program can handle that.

Again: If no-one asks...

Mod style abilities are normally not given, but that clearly depends on the demand and workload.

If the status of a mod is based purely on user votes, then you open the door to:
> People who vote down mods they've never played, purely to grief people.
> People who vote more than once, especially if it's to vote their own mod up into that "preferred" category.
That's just a start. The point is that it's nice to have a user feedback system (which they do now), but at best it should be something used purely as an advisory guide for an actual Firaxis employee. (If a mod gets 1000 "up" votes, then someone takes a look at it to decide whether it deserves the "preferred" label, and if it gets a certain number of down votes they might stick an "obsolete" sticker on it.)

Agree on all that, but you can prevent the abuse easily (if implemented in the right way), and in a community counter-voting is also possible (if there are only 1 or 2 trolls).

I wasn't just referring to patch versions, although yes, that's an essential part of the system. If your mod was uploaded even one patch ago, there should be a big WARNING label attached to it no matter what was actually changed internally. If it's been more than six months since the last upload, maybe upgrade the label to ABANDONED; they might still work, but don't count on it.

Current system is not that well thought, or not implemented in that way.
They might need another coder or so...

What I was actually referring to was a finer version control scheme than that. Like I said, I've gone through something like 35 versions of my mod since its creation; while I'm now averaging one version every 2 weeks, towards the beginning it was more like 2-3 days per. All 35 of these were still "v1" officially. So do you:
A> Certify the mod once, put its creator as "trusted", and hope that he doesn't abuse this with later updates to the mod?
or
B> Require each update to be checked by an employee, requiring far more work?

I'm not sure if i can follow you.

 

[Valkrionn]

Well, it's not exactly a negligible amount of work, and it really needs to be coordinated with the mod's creator so that he has time to set up the various threads. And ideally, the creators of those mods would have some additional administrative privileges in their own subfora, for deleting old posts and such, although I don't know if this board's program can handle that.

I wish that were possible.

One of the reasons we ended up making a forum on a team-website for RifE, although one of the most minor.

 

[Sullla]

Thread necro! So is this ever happening? I mean, it's been over 3 months now since the DLL was releasing "soon". At some point this thing is going to released.... right?