[WIP] 3rd Unique Component Project

[bane_]

Oh, sure, you can make anything sound confusing and vague if you ignore the context. There is no reason to take it 'absolutely'; read what it is talking about and voilá: It's now accurate and clear!

I mean, there is no 'debate' as you put it when it comes to 'post in forum' vs. 'the Law' (it is similar to those signs that say the owner of a parking lot is not responsible if your car is stolen).
I can see how that may create confusion, but '[a]s you publish a mod, you do not have any possession over it's code anymore.' is right on the mark if you read the post I quoted! A mod, in this forum's context is a modification of Civ5 - there is hardly anyway you can create confusion from that - and a modification of Civ5 is a derivative work from Fireaxis' own.

EDIT:

in the UK, copyright ownership comes from labour investment first, then creative investment

This is VERY interesting, I did not know that! "The more you know..."

 

[JFD]

I don't see how the context of that quote validates your statement. Your statement sounded very absolute: that, as you publish a mod (of Civ V, yes), you give up your possession over its code. I don't see how that is made less general and less absolute by Mike's statement. And there's really no need to state there is a context that I've missed with condescension. Perhaps I have missed a matter of context, but I really don't see it. If there is, then absolutely I will concede that I jumped the gun. So, again, call me conservative for being sensitive about the subject

That's an exceptional fallacy to claim there is 'no' debate. There are philosophical, as well as legal, discrepencies which could be used in a debate. I'm not saying they would, should, or would necessarily be effective, but there can also be room for a different interpreation and/or application. And again, I wasn't talking about a 'post in a forum,' I was talking about your commitment to the rules of this forum, i.e. whether or not the Modiquette is a legal contract, and how far that legality can be enforced. Nothing to do with posts. The comment that you're referring to was incidentally, too, so it is irrevalant to the matter at hand; and in fact is quote moot, as it's not a debate that I would have or support.

And it's certainly not as clear as a modification being a derivative work of Firaxis', because a mod is merely a description we use to denote different pieces of industrial and creative work that compose it, which all come together to change this game; not itself anything tangible. Much of which is not derivative of Firaxis' work. Don't get me wrong. I respect (both morally and from an economic standpoint) the hell out of Firaxis for what they allow us to do (at least, what they started out doing ) - but that doesn't mean they own everything that I do with my time in relation to modding.

All I really wanted to do was to take the opportunity to reiterate what I've said whenever this topic comes up (because people often are ignorant or misinformed as to their rights over their own work as modders, be it in relation to the Modiquette, or to Firaxis, or to Steam (who both claim ownership that would not legally stand up in court (although, granted, it might in the US, which is probably the point))). Considering how much time, effort, creatively, etc. that I've invested in my mods, it must come at no surprise that I take the matter very seriously. But semantics are tedious to discuss. My initial response wasn't meant to debate your statement - I probably made that unclear because I quoted you.

 

[bane_]

See? I said you could make anything sound confusing if you want!

There is no debate, AT ALL, as if a post in a forum about directions of etiquette should trample the Law. I mean, it is so ABSURD it isn't worth discussing. You have to see the teratological argument you're making here.
You wanna discuss Law or Philosophy? Let's do it, I love discussions - my profession is all about logic and arguments - but we should do it via PM instead, this is already laughably out of hand for the initial 'issue'.

You are making it way more complex than it is. Look, the issue is settled, you don't need to like it, it is just like gravity, it doesn't matter if 9%, 19% or 99% of people don't believe it, it still works.

 

[JFD]

See? I said you could make anything sound confusing if you want!

There is no debate, AT ALL, as if a post in a forum about directions of etiquette should trample the Law. I mean, it is so ABSURD it isn't worth discussing. You have to see the teratological argument you're making here.
You wanna discuss Law or Philosophy? Let's do it, I love discussions - my profession is all about logic and arguments - but we should do it via PM instead, this is already laughably out of hand for the initial 'issue'.

You are making it way more complex than it is. Look, the issue is settled, you don't need to like it, it is just like gravity, it doesn't matter if 9%, 19% or 99% of people don't believe it, it still works.

But you're missing the point that I'm not talking about ettiquette, nor a mere post. The Modiquette, which is a contract that you agreed to by creating an account (or, at least, by publishing content here), talks about a modder's ownership to the content that he posts here. That's more than ettiquette; that's your right to what you publish here, and the legality of that is something that could possibly be debated. You can't tell me that it is impossible for a subjective and case-by-case matter such as the law and its relation to online contracts to be debatable.

I do not want to discuss philosophy or law, and I do not see why you must be so defensive. I merely stated - as a complete incidental, because I don't like to make absolute statements if I can help it - that maybe someone could debate whether the Modiquette does surrender your right to the content you published here. I wouldn't debate that it doesn't, but in case someone did think they could, I left that possibility open.

 

[bane_]

You can't tell me that it is impossible for a subjective and case-by-case matter such as the law and its relation to online contracts to be debatable.

Good thing I never did that, then.

Seriously, we should take this to private messaging, it has developed into a kind of interesting discussion and you really seem to be a person who can differentiate 'discussion' from 'fighting', so that's extra enjoyable.

 

[JFD]

Good thing I never did that, then.

Seriously, we should take this to private messaging, it has developed into a kind of interesting discussion and you really seem to be a person who can differentiate 'discussion' from 'fighting', so that's extra enjoyable.

No you didn't, but you were arguing as if you believed this (as far I as saw it), by saying that there was no room for debate for a matter that is on law and contracts. This, however, may have come from a range of miscommunications; assumptions and misunderstandings.

Just to sum: I said one can debate the Modiquette's enforcement as a legal contract on matters of the "community" owning what you publish here. I didn't mean to suggest I would, or that it was a viable debate, but was merely making room for someone who could, not that I can imagine how they would do it (I mentioned that it could be a debate of philosophy on the nature of law and contracts, but that's a stretch). This is what I consider you to have been disputing. It didn't occur to me - even whilst you were talking about "a post in a forum", that's my oblivious mistake - that you may not have viewed the Modiquette as a contract as I do. It also did not occur to me that you may not have considered, or realised, that the Modiquette states that what you publish here belongs to the community, which suggests that you're also giving up the right to what you publish (I'll admit, a suggestion that is also potentially subjective). We're both in agreement that this would not stand up in a court of law, however, (not that it would be pressed, but that's not the point), and is just meant as a direction of spirit. However, again, I was merely allowing the exception that someone might disagree; like with the conservative remark, this is merely what I do when I realise that I would otherwise be making a statement that excludes opposing thoughts, even should I not be aware of how those opposing thoughts might manifest. Perhaps this sort of thing is implied whenever you say something on the internet, but consider me overly precautious and needlessly accomodating.

But yeah, I think that's enough. Modiquette is still fundamentally a direction of ettiquette, and good ettiquette says we've derailed the topic too much. The Moderator Lords have already been gracious enough, they will require many sacrifices tonight.

 

[bane_]

My efforts were in vain, it seems.

Okay, let's do it by topics:

No you didn't, but you were arguing as if you believed this (as far I as saw it), by saying that there was no room for debate for a matter that is on law and contracts.

I work debating the Law. In fact, I work debating Law on labour contracts! I won't go further, as you state (and I recognize) in the rest of the above post that this was a matter of miscommunication on my part.

didn't mean to suggest I would, or that it was a viable debate, but was merely making room for someone who could, not that I can imagine how they would do it (I mentioned that it could be a debate of philosophy on the nature of law and contracts, but that's a stretch).

That you may not have viewed the Modiquette as a contract as I do.

The modiquette is not a contract. This word has been hijacked just as 'theory' or 'organic'. It is not a contract, not here in Brazil, not in the USA and I'm positively sure it isn't in any country that allows Internet access.
I would go on further and say that indeed it is a stretch to say it is debatable; to say 'I'm just making room for it' it would assume it needs someone's approval to discuss it, so the argument is either useless or worse.
I only accept an argument as 'debatable' if the majority of premises are logical and acceptably confined; I assume you do too, since you're clearly very eloquent. A stretch is an exaggeration, this is not good for a discussion.
If is not a viable debate - as you denounce it to be the case -, it would be worthless and a waste of time to do it!

It also did not occur to me that you may not have considered, or realised, that the Modiquette states that what you publish here belongs to the community, which suggests that you're also giving up the right to what you publish (I'll admit, a suggestion that is also potentially subjective)

I didn't. That's totally my fault. (I still hate this christmas-blush emoticon)

However, again, I was merely allowing the exception that someone might disagree; like with the conservative remark, this is merely what I do when I realise that I would otherwise be making a statement that excludes opposing thoughts, even should I not be aware of how those opposing thoughts might manifest.

Again, it is not a relevant remark then, because there is no need for someone to 'allow' a discussion in a free thought zone.
It's similar to the 'I don't make absolute statements', ain't that one? It is worthless, you would have to define what constitues one first, and I would argue that nothing that I said so far is 'absolute'... oh, except this one; and this one, and this one. You see where this is going. Also, why not?
Here is one: If you hold an object denser than air on your hand right now, then remove your hand, it will fall towards the ground. I am ready to bet on it.
I would go further and say that we shall make them more frequently, there is no problem with an absolute remark, as long as you are ready to be contested on it - and that's how thinking progresses (which is why I find abhorrent the 'agree to disagree' statement on serious matters)! Absolute remarks, as nature, have no issue, the problem is when we use them incorrectly; the same goes for its most known antonym.

Opposing thoughts will arise on a dicussion, that's the beauty of it!
No need for ground-preparing. Just look at how this discussion started!



You talked about 'surrending rights', although, by definition you must first be in possession of something in order to surrender it, which isn't the case when it comes to derivative works; you can't sue¹, send a cease and desist nor legally complain² about anyone here!


Add a few more sacrifices to the tally, if you will, please.


¹ To sue, you would first have to get a license, but this is way out of the scope here.
² In the field we say you can legally dispute anything; although you won't always pass the admission phase.

 

[JFD]

The modiquette is not a contract. This word has been hijacked just as 'theory' or 'organic'. It is not a contract, not here in Brazil, not in the USA and I'm positively sure it isn't in any country that allows Internet access.
I would go on further and say that indeed it is a stretch to say it is debatable; to say 'I'm just making room for it' it would assume it needs someone's approval to discuss it, so the argument is either useless or worse.
I only accept an argument as 'debatable' if the majority of premises are logical and acceptably confined; I assume you do too, since you're clearly very eloquent. A stretch is an exaggeration, this is not good for a discussion.
If is not a viable debate - as you denounce it to be the case -, it would be worthless and a waste of time to do it!

Well, I'm not a lawyer, nor in law, so I really don't know, but I considered something as a set of rules by which I agree to abide to be a contract (whether legally enforcable or not, whether on the internet or not). So if you're right, I'll accept much of the discussion has come of a needless interpretation of the Modiquette as a contract. And if so, I can take a step back when informing others that it is not legally binding.

Well, I'll put the debate allowance (by which I mean to permit the possibility, not to permit the action) down to an automatic reaction; the function of that statement was to safeguard against an argument with someone that it could be debated - even if their argument would be invalid, it would still be an argument, and an effort that I didn't want to put in (exactly because it would be a waste of time, but wouldn't necessarily be something I could avoid). Unfortunately, that didn't seem to have helped me much

 

[mikeburnfire]

Hey, sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into a big debate about etiquette and copyright laws. I was just looking at ways to jump-start this project.

I respect the work you do, JFD, and I can understand why you wouldn't want others to take assets you've spent a lot of time on as their own. Even though seizing parts of your mods against your consent is totally legal, it's still piss-poor behavior. No offense intended.

 

[JFD]

Hey, sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into a big debate about etiquette and copyright laws. I was just looking at ways to jump-start this project.

I respect the work you do, JFD, and I can understand why you wouldn't want others to take assets you've spent a lot of time on as their own. Even though seizing parts of your mods against your consent is totally legal, it's still piss-poor behavior. No offense intended.

Okay, I'll be a bit straight with it: AFAIK, you cannot legally just take Jan's artwork (not necessarily the rest, either; because derivative works are owned by Firaxis, and non-derivative works are owned by the creator) and add it into your mod, without his permission. The same is how you cannot just take music from another game and put it in a mod. You can't legally do it; but you can do it, so long as no one stops you. That's completely moot, because the Modiquette states that you should feel free to do that (and hell, I make use of that), and by signing up here (or publishing here), we agree to the Modiquette, which means you can take Jan's artwork. However, the Modiquette isn't a legal contract (excuse me for still calling it a contract), so that doesn't make it legal. That's basically all I ever meant; it's not legal (to take Jan's art), but it's permissable (rude, though). I'll admit, I sound like I'm making a lot of redundant points today. And you know, it may not actually be my business to defend Jan's art thus.

No offense taken, of course. I didn't think you meant any offense with anything. You are, of course, free to make use of my code (i.e. you have my consent; we know you don't need it ); just I hope you'll change the design from mine. Sorry for derailing your proposition. It was a good one, no doubt.

 

[bane_]

So... does anyone want to get this one off the ground?

 

[JFD]

So... does anyone want to get this one off the ground?

TBH, it wouldn't be hard to compile a finished version. Here are my thoughts on what's WIP:

America: I think America should get my Ranch (fits the time period, and works okay with the UA).

Babylon: Ziggurat. Easy. Though I hate thinking about adding to already OP civs.

China: Pavilion; there's art for it somewhere. Although I always hoped for a barracks UB, which delt with science.

Egypt: I'll be making a Akhenaten/Hatshepshut/Ramesses split/revision, so something from there would be good. There's an unused graphic for an Egyptian monument that could be used as a Obelisk UI (which is what Akhenaten will be getting). I think they didn't use it because there's a swastika in the graphic Would synergise well with the Pyramids, and could give them a good faith bonus.

England: Should be something like a Lighthouse replacement to work with the UA. I don't have anything, as all my variants on England have two UUs.

France: De Gaulle's Cafe could work, or a second UU as either the FL or from Napoleon's revision of mine (probably the Cafe, given the UA).

Germany: Agreed. Jaeger.

India: A growth building would be more appropriate. They're generally not a warmonger (unique Nuke? )

Japan: I'd personally recommend using my Dojo design (yup, hypocrit), because of the synergy with the UA.

Poland: Dunno. It's so OP, adding the Voivode or the Estate would make it god-tier.

Russia: UU makes the most sense.

Sweden: Will have a Sweden split eventually, so maybe something from that.

 

[mikeburnfire]

Well, the buildings should be easy to create. I learned how to do it with the Cothon, and I just made a Steel Factory for America yesterday in a couple of hours. I could whip up things like the Seowon and Madrasa quickly-- the biggest thing holding me back would be my poor art skills.

I tried giving England a version of the Motte-and-Bailey fort, but I didn't like it, so I dropped it.

 

[bouncymischa]

Egypt: I'll be making a Akhenaten/Hatshepshut/Ramesses split/revision, so something from there would be good. There's an unused graphic for an Egyptian monument that could be used as a Obelisk UI (which is what Akhenaten will be getting). I think they didn't use it because there's a swastika in the graphic Would synergise well with the Pyramids, and could give them a good faith bonus.

There are a few Egyptian Civ 4 models I've been meaning to convert at some point that might also be suitable. There's at least a couple of pyramids, temples, and sculptures, although I suppose the Obelisk might still be the most suitable for something built en masse?

If nothing else, it could be kind of amusing if the final result was a bit randomized between them all. XD

 

[AW Arcaeca]

Another UC we might consider is the ashigaru, which could replace musketmen, or, to prevent bee-lining, pikemen. We can go a couple different directions for Egypt - khopesh, serapeion, nilometer, or something else. India could use a gurdwara, perhaps, or a mahal. I maintain that Uhlan sounds good for Poland.

 

[mikeburnfire]

Babylon: Ziggurat. Easy.

Like this?:

Though I hate thinking about adding to already OP civs.

We shouldn't worry about fixing the imbalanced civs. There are other "balance fixing" mods that do that. We should just avoid doing things that would make the problem worse, like giving a Science-boosting Shrine to Korea/Babylon, or a UU that generates culture for Poland.

-------------------------

On another topic, I'm starting to probe into the code of this project to see what we would be starting with. I see that the design is modular, which means that any user could delete the parts of if they don't like, and swap in another "3rd UC" mod for a specific Civ. For instance, if I didn't like the American Ranch UB, I could download the mod, delete the "American" folder, and then download the American Steel Mill UB to take its place. And, heck, if enough people try making their own "3rd UC" mod, we could start a "4th UC" project.

But first we need to get this project finished. I don't think any one-specific person needs to be in charge of it-- we can all contribute small parts and then compile a final version. I propose we do this in stages. We should make sure we have all the assets for every UC, and then decide how to balance them. I checked the files, and we have more here than the front post suggests, but still missing a significant portion. I divided the files into 3 groups:

The first group is nearly complete. The buildings have unique pictures and the units have unique sprites and pictures. Small coding/text errors may be present, and some of the pictures look out-of-place, but we don't have to worry much about getting a UC for these civs:

Civ Name UC Replaces... Comment

Morocco Riad Garden
Greece Agora Market Programming errors - easily fixable
Songhai Sofa Crossbowman Missing Civilpedia info
Rome Forum Market Code need some fixing
Germany Teutonic Knight Knight Needs unique icon (has unique pic and sprite)
Carthage Cothon Seaport
England Playhouse Zoo
Venice Canals Garden
Mongolia Ger Shrine
Sweden Stave Church Temple
Denmark Viking Longhouse Barracks
Arabia Madrassa University
Spain Bullring Colosseum
Polynesia Fishpond Granary
Portugal Casa de Índia East India Company (!) Coding errors
Austria Landwehr Rifleman
Aztecs Eagle Scout Needs unique icon
Japan Dojo Barracks
Mayans Ballcourt Colosseum Need to fix Civilpedia info
Incans Chasqui Scout
Shoshone Tipi (Tile improvement) -
Egypt Khopesh Swordsman
Korea Seowon University Coding errors
Ottoman Turkish Bath Garden
Byzantium Hippodrom Circus
America Saloon Windmill Behaves completely different from a Windmill.
Brazil Sambadrome Stadium
France Foreign Legion Great War Infantry
Babylon Ziggurat Temple
Iroquois Forest Prowler Musketman
Netherlands Waag Bank

The second group is incomplete; they may have no unique pictures, and UBs are trying and failing to do things that require custom LUA coding. UUs have custom in-game sprites, but need a unique picture and icon. If somebody wants to create an alternate UC, we can use that instead. Otherwise, these need to be finished:

Civ Name UC Replaces... Comment

Assyria Royal Guard Swordsman Needs unique pic/icon
Poland Uhlan Cavalry Needs unique pic/icon
Persia Clibinarii Horseman Needs unique pic/icon
Ethiopia Churches of Lalibela Grand Temple (!) Code untested - may not function as intended
Zulu Kraal (Tile Improvement) - Slightly more powerful version of Pasture. Can still make pastures.

Finally, there's a third group for civs who have no 3rd UC, or have one that took minimal effort. We're talking about duplicating the code for a Rifleman, renaming them, giving them the Drill I promotion, and saying it's unique. The UUs have no unique sprite/pic/icon. I would have no problem with these being replaced.

Civ Name UC Replaces... Comment

Celts Carpentom Chariot Archer Placeholder (just renamed regular unit)
Russia Streltsy Musketman Placeholder
Indonesia Cetbang Warship Galleas Placeholder
India Sepoy Rifleman Has custom promotion, but looks like ordinary rifleman
Siam - - No UC yet. Proposed: Sala
China - - No UC yet. Proposed: Junk Ship, Pavilion
Huns - - No UC yet. Proposed: Hunlun Hunlu

Note: Assets for a unique Chariot Archer, the Babylonian Mounted Bowman are present. Has unique pic, but needs unique sprite/icon. Currently using a different UC for Babylon, but if anybody wants to complete this then we can switch them.

 

[Skaz881]

Does Babylon's Mounted Bowman have a unique model, or is it just reusing the Hun's UU?

 

[mikeburnfire]

It's reusing the Hun's model, but has a unique picture. Moved Babylon to the WIP section. Thanks for catching that mistake.

EDIT: I finished a functioning version of Brazil's Sambadrome (right now it's just a Stadium that yields +5 tourism), and gave the Foreign Legion back to France. Unless somebody wants to submit a different/better UC, I'm considering those 'completed' for now.

EDIT 2: Made a Babylonian Ziggurat. Moving them to 'completed' table:

Spoiler :

EDIT 3: Made pic and icon for Iroquois Forest Prowler. Pic is off-center in screenshot.

Spoiler :

EDIT 4: Netherlands now have a Waag

 

[janboruta]

Sorry to go back to the lengthy discussion about Modiquette and whatever, but since it seems to be partly about my creative input, I'd think I'd just drop by and write a few useless words. As an artist, I don't surrender any of my rights to the artwork I've created, ever, be it by law or modiquette or whatnot. So in theory I retain the right to block the usage of my artwork in places I don't desire it to be showcased, especially if I hadn't sold business rights to it to a specific customer.

However, from a practical standpoint and from the Internet's nature, I am in no position to track down and block every instance my artwork is used. Civ modding scene in particular, since my artwork can be seen as useful in a multitude of other mods and projects, and relying on my absolute agreement might cripple someone else's initiative, or make him or her lose many hours unnecessarily in order to replace a desired piece of artwork. Of course, obtaining a person's consent, or at least asking for it, is rather easy and straightforward, and should be considered common courtesy. Not by law, of course - but it's nice for the artist to know where his artwork lands in the end.

To sum up: yes, you are able to use my artwork in any mod, but please ask beforehand. It'll save time and nerves for both of us, if I find my stuff later in undesirable places and will be trying to clarify the issue. While Modiquette doesn't really oblige you to ask the original author for permission, the almighty common Etiquette says it rather explicitly. Of course this applies only if the original author is still around in the forums. It wouldn't make sense to ask someone who hasn't been logged in for a long time.

 

[mikeburnfire]

Steal from lurkers. Got it.


janboruta, mrc2022 was using your Landwehr artwork for the Austria UU. Is it okay if we keep that in? (please say yes; it's really good)