This is significant :)

[DeeZire]

Now, I certainly do not wish to encourage any conflict or bad feeling here - lets make sure we understand that :)

I made a post at the official forums, in the Maps & Modding forum, regarding a 'quick fix' to the issue where ObjectCreationList.INI doesnt get refreshed between maps.

http://messagebrd.westwood.ea.com/cgi-bin/boards/gen/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000212

The original post, and the reply, suggest very strongly that the concensus is on creating mods via map.ini files. This is the 'official' and 'preferred' approach, and is known as amending the 'user' settings (ie modding via map files) rather than the system settings (ie modding via the base INI files).

The reasons for this, are that;-

(i) its simpler. One INI file for the whole mod, map.ini;

(ii) its easier for the users - they can choose therefore which mods to use when they want. Thus mods via map.ini files can all happily co-exist and the user can decide which to use and when. This is how Generals implements the 'multiple mods' concept. Not quite what they did with Half Life some time back, but hey its something;

(iii) it leads to no sync errors online or over a LAN. If you mod the base INI files, then any maps that the user then plays on, whether they be official or otherwise, are likely to cause a sync error IF they in turn mod the files themselves or call for a change to the files that youve already done. Example: your mod removes or renames the Crusader Tank from the game because you think it sucks or you want WWII stuff instead. The user of your mod then decides to play on any old map, maybe official maybe not, and that map wants to change the rate of fire or movement speed for the Crusader Tank object - bang, sync error, theres no Crusader anymore ;)

I think I get the modding message now...

...although theres a severe disadvantage in creating a mod through the map.ini files since every single map the user had would have to include the same map.ini file to affect a situation where they actually have a 'true' mod installed. Bye bye to mods in the league of Counter Strike.

That means the end of total conversion projects like Blitzkrieg 2 unless of course they plan on (i) distributing a large map.ini file and asking the end user to copy that into every map they posess (many of which may not be designed with Blitz2 in mind) or (ii) creating a load of maps specific for Blitz2, containing their map.ini, which would add significantly to its already substantial development cycle time.

And all of that is without talking models, skins, sounds, music and GUI changes...

In short ladies and gents, they dont want you to do decent mods - just tinker with the game from the safety of the map files. Come to think of it, thats the same thing people did in TS and RA2, which led to people shunning mods as they associated modded maps with cheating.

Of course, you can still get mods to run via the INI files as usual, but right now the feeling is that its a bad thing to do so. Dont be surprised if that means it goes in a future patch.

What I cant figure out is;-

- the game parses its INI own base files. Cool. Everything works and no sync errors.
- we add a copy of EVERY one of those files, containing our changes, to the game maintaining the exact same directory structure and theyre saying that bad because maybe game cant handle it - how come? Even if every client on a LAN had the exact same installation, the exact same INI files, and that LAN was a totally homogenous environment (in other words the situation I have here), why is a mod in this manner a problem?

With almost every other leading software developer out there offering more and more support for its editing community and fan base, you cant help but feel that we've been let down. Yet again. And that comes from a die hard C&C fan from the very first days.

I want to say though that I do understand one thing - there are enough problems with the game, especially online, as it is WITHOUT those woes being added to by people getting errors through edited INI files. Its logical to try and eliminate that as a possible cause of problems at this early stage, and we should be mindful of that fact by being responsible enough to release only on a stable product. However, maybe if the BETA testers, who posted screenshots, the soundtrack, the cursors, the INI files and modded it to death, had actually tested it instead of doing any of those things and thus breaking their NDAs, BOTH of these issues would not have arisen ;) The INI files were public, on websites, 2 months back and they sure didnt come from here.

As I said, you have both sides of the debate there, and I dont want this to generate any conflict - the last thing theyre worried about is whether or not mods work LOL and they are working hard enough as it is just to get the game working.

Having go that off my chest, Im off off back for a game of UnrealII :D

[LtZack]

so in short EA is screwed us ALL again! GOD DAMNIT I hate that EA they have screwed us all since they took over WW.
So we cant make TC mods at all? or we can it just will be very hard on the person that wants to play it and that it will not be popular with the general public? so I guess that mod maps is all that EA was intending us to do DAMN DAMN DAMN I HATE THEM SOO MUCH !!!!!!

[Curator]

Well, this is very dissappointing. Modding every map would be very inefficient both time wise and for the size of the mod not to mention the limitations. It's kind of odd that they do this now after the game seems to be built for mods. I can understand the need for fixing bugs but I fail to see why mods would have to be eliminated in order to do this.

[Koen]

Right, and now I don't know what to do. What should TibEd 2 support... editing base INIs OR map.ini? Or both (not sure that's possible as I haven't looked yet at map.ini). Decisions, decisions :S.

[DeeZire]

Couldnt agree more.

You can still do a normal 'edit the INI files mod' I guess, but theyre saying thats a bad idea as the game may not handle it (and thus far it certainly cant handle it online).

And its not a simple case of copying and pasting code from an INI file into the map file either - all that ReplaceModule here and RemoveModule there stuff, makes the job 3 times longer.

[Phoib]

And its not a simple case of copying and pasting code from an INI file into the map file either - all that ReplaceModule here and RemoveModule there stuff, makes the job 3 times longer.
It's just short of impossible.

Not to insult you DZ (would be a bad place if I tried that here :P) but you underestimate the ammount of work that goes into a TC. If you want to make a decent TC, you can just start with a new FactionUnit.ini, Locomoter.ini, Weapon.ini, FactionBuilding.ini, PlayerTemplate.ini.

That's without Superweapons, without Updates, without Sciences.
You can copy and paste some stuff from some files, but thats it.
The rest is just plain new code, and it will be impossible to keep track of all the map.ini files if you make 5 changes. If you have 5 maps, that's 25 things to chance, you lose track fairly quick!
And with most TC's ranging in about 10.000 changes in lines of code (if not more) you are either limited to one map or maps which are "out of synch with each other".

[DeeZire]

Koen, Id stick with the original plan to edit the normal INI files, but a great feature would be the ability to port your changes into a map.ini file.

[DeeZire]

Heh, I just thought - with some map files weighing at around the 300K mark (Id say thats a fair average for a decent, well done 4 player map), consider how long its gonna take to transfer that AND a map.ini file that deals with a good mod - say, another 2MB. The INI files are around 7MB, so take all your changes and you have to say 2MB.

Now who in their right mind is going to hang on while that lot transfers?! I mean, *ahem*, theres no lag on the servers now is there? There will be when people start sending that lot across ;)

Methinks that not only are EA being elitist in terms of required machine specs for this game, theyre also doing much to weed out the 56k'ers, and at the time of posting thats some 65% of the UK games market. Tell that to your sales executives ;)

Then again, most of Germany is broadband anyways and I think it was plain for us all to see during the marketing and promotional campaign how much EA prize that particular market. How often did the guys visit the UK? Umm........

[smurfbizkit]

That means the end of total conversion projects like Blitzkrieg 2 unless of course they plan on (i) distributing a large map.ini file and asking the end user to copy that into every map they posess (many of which may not be designed with Blitz2 in mind) or (ii) creating a load of maps specific for Blitz2, containing their map.ini, which would add significantly to its already substantial development cycle time.

-Of course, you can still get mods to run via the INI files as usual, but right now the feeling is that its a bad thing to do so. Dont be surprised if that means it goes in a future patch.



I am not sure how this really affects mods/tc's at all. This just seems to fix problems related to mod maps, and their compatability with other mod maps and the original game. I don't think it is mentioned that mods that edit the "baseline ini's" wont' work...just that they arn't really supported. This is fine for me, since mods of that nature have NEVER been supported.

As for Blitz2, as long as our capabilities to ini edit arn't hindered so much...we'll keep on.

[CannisRabidus]

I'm approaching this in the same way I approached RA2/YR modding... I'm trying to make maps first. And DZ, you are being kind. Like, really, really, very kind. Me, I am about 2 steps away from going completely ballistic over this... because my concern is the AI. If all I want to do is to have the skirmish AI, on my map, do something mildly cool like go garrison a strategic building, then what I also do is to guarantee that NO MOD'S AI WILL EVER WORK on my map. This is totally unacceptable.

One thing that was asked repeatedly (by me anyway) prior to game release, was would the game have a mod browser. Makes sense right, many other games have this... but never was a straight answer given. Well it turns out that the user-made-map browser IS the mod browser. But that's not a mod browser now is it?

All the times that mod support questions were asked, and the answer given was 'well we are going to have this real nifty World Builder editor' - effectively answering a mod support question with a level editing support reply - was annoying at the time. But now we can see that it wasn't just a way to dodge mod support questions. These guys really don't know the difference between mods and maps!!

I'm not as kind as you are DZ. My take: In short, they really fvcked this one up.

[DeeZire]

These guys really don't know the difference between mods and maps!!

True - it appears they think mods are maps.



I'm not as kind as you are DZ. My take: In short, they really fvcked this one up.

In community terms, I think you may be right... they frustrated the hell out of people in Holland who couldnt register the game or get online, they isolated a fair percentile of people with such demanding specs for a game (and without being hyper critical much more demanding game engines run better on lower/equivalent spec machines, UnrealII and UT2003 spring immediately to mind), they dont want 56k'ers, theyve almost put a block on modders, and a lot of decent gamers cant even get online let alone play it. And then those that do complain of lag, poor performance, and errors. Thats all before we start talking about the bugs in the game like you Worker waving a Metal Detector suicide fashion as he runs at enemy tanks :tard:

Theres more messages of criticism than words of appreciation on the official boards (which arent moderated) and although that may well be the nature of the beast as far as the target audience is concerned, you can group the posts into about 4 issues and conclude that something serious is wrong.

If the end of WW did not herald the event, then this certainly has - C&C is over.

[smurfbizkit]

I think you guys are over reacting a bit...from what I have seen we can still mod edit like we have in the past. It isn't like we were counting on having support from ea...

[AgentGraves]

- we add a copy of EVERY one of those files, containing our changes, to the game maintaining the exact same directory structure and theyre saying that bad because maybe game cant handle it - how come? Even if every client on a LAN had the exact same installation, the exact same INI files, and that LAN was a totally homogenous environment (in other words the situation I have here), why is a mod in this manner a problem?

Let me try to clear the air here, because I think my statements in the official forums have led people to believe that the EAP team doesn't want people to do total conversions. This is not the case, and I am sorry if folks have taken this to mean that all your plans (and hard work) are for naught.

The issue at hand is simply that editing the baseline INI files, in place, with no safeguards, can lead to mismatch errors. This is part of the anti-cheating code in Generals, which can detect that different users are running with different INI files... this is a Good Thing, since otherwise, people could produce many simple cheats by running modified INI files locally.

In point of fact, the situation that Deezire describes above (in which all clients are running with identical, modified INI setups) should work flawlessly, and would be totally cool, I might add. The only gotcha is in setting up a way to easily and safely switch between the "normal" Generals hierarchy of INI files, art, sound, etc., and a totally separate hierarchy for a total conversion. Generals has no built-in way to maintain complete, separate hierarchies and switch between them, so to accomplish this, modmakers will probably need to make a custom tool to switch these setups in/out of the Run directory in a seamless way. (It would certainly be nice if Generals was capable of doing this directly, but as I mentioned on the official forums, that's unlikely to occur anytime soon.)

Our emphasis on using map.ini is intended for people who want to make modifications for specific maps, but that remains primarily within the Generals "universe". The map.ini functionality is, as you surmise, not appropriate for a true total conversion, nor was it ever intended to be.

In sum: EAP very much wants to have people do total conversions! We just want to ensure that they are done in a way that aren't likely to detract from the "normal" experience, and due to the issues above, they have to be done with caution.

[smurfbizkit]

There we go, I didn't think that it seemed like the doomsday thing deezire was talking about. Thanks for your time :)

btw, it would be real nice if we had an ini parser/particle editor/window editor *hint hint*

[RVMECH]

why do I foresee a bunch of noobish batch files hitting the airwaves=(

[CannisRabidus]

Generals has no built-in way to maintain complete, separate hierarchies and switch between them, so to accomplish this, modmakers will probably need to make a custom tool to switch these setups in/out of the Run directory in a seamless way. (It would certainly be nice if Generals was capable of doing this directly, but as I mentioned on the official forums, that's unlikely to occur anytime soon.)

Don't you see, this is entirely the problem! No one is denying the that the game is moddable, of course it is. However, and very significantly, this game is NOT mod-friendly. A game that is not mod-friendly is NOT mod support, which is what we were promised, and promised, and promised.

We need a custom tool? An external mod launcher, or a custom installer?!? This is no different than RA2. Here we go again, a user screws up the installation of a mod (or worse, the mod author creates and/or includes a flawed installer) and then the burned user wisely advises his peers that mods should be avoided!....Since obviously they "corrupt your game" and you will no longer be able to play online.

Now back to the deal where maps have their own mods, as if they ARE mods and not just modded maps. What this means is, you make a mod, and what maps will the user be able to play your mod with? Only the maps that came with the game. By the time your mod is released don't you think he will be really tired of those maps? He will want to play your mod with all those new maps he's spent all that time downloading... and he won't be able to, or if he does, he'll run into all sorts of errors... and you know what, he will think the reason this happens is because YOU screwed up.

How can anyone say with a straight face that claims of "mod support" were anything other than hype? The first thing we have to do is really admit that we've been had, and only then can we figure out where we're going from there.

[Curator]

I wouldn't go as far as saying this is the end of the C&C series but it is indeed a very dissappointing end to what could have been something good. I cannot for the life of me understand why they did not incorporate the Half Life method which would have solved all problems. Instead they claim maps as mods.

I agree the system requirements are almost unacceptably high and the game suffers from some painfully obvious bugs. It also seems a bit rushed in my opinion. I truthfully would have preferred to wait another year for them to get it right. Warcraft 3 for instance was a masterpiece in terms of stability, production and quality. Yes it was in development for 4 years but if thats what it takes then so be it.

I'm not all too concerned about the future of 'real' mods such as Blitzkrieg II because the ability to edit the system files is still there. Just think of it the same way you did with RA2. That includes having only one mod installed at a time and being careful not to use maps not supported by the mod. It's just common sense. If you use any map other than those created specifically for AR2 for instance, you run the risk of the game crashing. What I AM concerned about is a future patch which could disable the ability to alter the system files. That would be the end of modding. Map modding just doesn't cut it.

[Koen]

Koen, Id stick with the original plan to edit the normal INI files, but a great feature would be the ability to port your changes into a map.ini file.

Well that'll probably be a very complicated feature to make. I'll stick with base INI files for now, and will *try* to make a map.ini editor... but that's much more complex than a base INI editor. Also, what keys are allowed in map.ini?

The mod deployment issue for Generals is yet to be solved... Let me quote an e-mail from Bryan who implemented the .BIG system:


Yeah, local files will override anything in BIG files. Things in BIG files aren’t loaded in any order, the assumption is made that a file in a BIG file isn’t in any other BIG file, so if there is more than one copy of a file among BIG files there is no guarantee what order they will be loaded in.

So there goes the idea of single .BIG-file mods.... all files have to be put *outside* the BIG files.

[DeeZire]

The issue at hand is simply that editing the baseline INI files, in place, with no safeguards, can lead to mismatch errors. This is part of the anti-cheating code in Generals, which can detect that different users are running with different INI files... this is a Good Thing, since otherwise, people could produce many simple cheats by running modified INI files locally.

The only gotcha is in setting up a way to easily and safely switch between the "normal" Generals hierarchy of INI files, art, sound, etc., and a totally separate hierarchy for a total conversion.

In sum: EAP very much wants to have people do total conversions! We just want to ensure that they are done in a way that aren't likely to detract from the "normal" experience, and due to the issues above, they have to be done with caution.

I see your point now :S

Apologies if Ive led a mass 'anti mod support' campaign here although in return, please understand that the C&C editing community has always been a largely 'underground' thing despite consisting of some of its most hardcore fans - we love the game, we love your work, and as a result of that we love to tweak it :) Consequently, it becomes a very emotive subject if the signs are that we cant do that anymore ;)

I hope you see Ive tried to balance the point in my post :drunk: and on a personal note I think its fantastic that you have taken the time to come here and make a post - thats certainly something we havent seen before and IIRC its a first - and hopefully something we will get used to :)

I also hope you see that Im trying to enlist the editing scene to work in tandem with the official team rather than against them - as I detail in this post;-

http://online.deezire.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=837

Thanks!